Tailoring Treatment in Localized Prostate Cancer: Comparative Effectiveness of HIFU, Cryoablation, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy at 2-Year Follow-Up: Insights from Prospective Institutional Cohort

<b>Background:</b> In the evolving landscape of localized prostate cancer management, focal therapies such as high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and prostate gland cryoablation (PGC) have emerged as organ-sparing alternatives for patients with low- to intermediate-risk disease. While these strategies aim to preserve functional outcomes, comparative data against robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) remain scarce and heterogeneous. <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a prospective, single-center study evaluating oncologic and functional outcomes in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer (Grade Group ≤ 2) treated with HIFU (<i>n</i> = 49), PGC (<i>n</i> = 114), or RARP (<i>n</i> = 109). Outcomes were assessed using standardized definitions at a median follow-up of 22 months. Treatment failure was defined according to EAU guidelines, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was applied to time-to-event outcomes. <b>Results:</b> Focal therapy patients were older, more comorbid, and had lower baseline erectile function (each <i>p</i> < 0.001). RARP was associated with the longest operative time but yielded the lowest complication rate (2.75% vs. 20.4% for HIFU and 31.5% for PGC; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Catheter-related morbidity was disproportionately higher in the PGC group. RARP conferred a longer time to treatment failure (<i>p</i> < 0.001), although continence and potency recovery at follow-up were comparable across groups. Notably, erectile function returned earlier among HIFU patients. <b>Conclusions:</b> While focal therapies offer promising early functional results with minimal perioperative risk, they are associated with earlier treatment failure and higher catheter-related morbidity, particularly after cryoablation. These findings underscore the need for individualized treatment strategies guided by standardized, comparative outcome frameworks.