Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Comparison

Understand your options.

When prostate cancer is caught early, there are several effective ways to treat it – and the right choice depends on your health, goals, and priorities.

This side-by-side comparison outlines how each treatment works, what recovery looks like, and what to expect long-term – so you can feel more confident discussing your options with your urologist.

PROCEDURE/

CRITERIA

PROSTATECTOMY

RADIATION

NANOKNIFE (IRE)

HIFU

METHOD/TECHNOLOGY

Surgical removal of the prostate, typically via robotic or open surgery

External beam radiation or brachytherapy to destroy cancer cells

Focal ablation using electrical pulses to induce irreversible electroporation of cancerous cells

Focal ablation using high-intensity ultrasound waves to destroy cancerous tissue

HOSPITAL STAY

1-2 days

Outpatient

Outpatient or 1 day

Outpatient

ANAESTESIA

General

None required

Local or General

Local or Spinal

DURATION

2-4 hours

5-10 minutes per session, total treatment lasting several weeks

1-2 hours

2-3 hours

COVERED BY OHIP

Yes

Yes

No

No

SEXUAL FUNCTION PRESERVATION

35-50%¹,² depending on nerve-sparing technique

40-75%³ depending on radiation dose and technique

80-97%⁷˒⁸˒⁹ depending on tumor location

70-95%⁵ depending on tumor location

CONTINENCE PRESERVATION

70-85%⁶ achieve continence after recovery

70-95%⁴ depending on radiation dose and technique

98%⁷˒⁸˒⁹ retain continence

88-98%⁵ retain continence

RECOVERY TIME

6-8 weeks

Fatigue may persist for several weeks

2-4 weeks

1-2 weeks

TREATMENT AREA

Whole prostate

Whole prostate

Focal – cancer location only with a margin of safety

Focal – cancer location only with a margin of safety

FDA/HEALTH CANADA APPROVED

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

SIMULTANEOUS
MRI FUSION GUIDANCE

No

No

Yes

Yes

¹ Capogrosso P, Vertosick EA, Benfante NE, et al. Are we improving erectile function recovery after radical prostatectomy? Analysis of patients treated over the last decade. Eur Urol. 2018;75(2):221–228. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.039. Published online September 17, 2018. Available in PMC: February 1, 2020.

² Barocas DA, Alvarez J, Resnick MJ, et al. Association between radiation therapy, surgery, or observation for localized prostate cancer and patient-reported outcomes after 3 years. JAMA. 2017;317(11):1126–1140. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.1704.

³ Le Guevelou J, Sargos P, Ferretti L, et al. Sexual structure sparing for prostate cancer radiotherapy: A systematic review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024;7(3):332-343. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.006

⁴ Guillaumier S, Solomon E, Jenks J, et al. Radiotherapy is associated with reduced continence outcomes following implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter in men with post-radical prostatectomy incontinence. Urol Ann. 2017;9(3):253–256. doi:10.4103/UA.UA_25_17. PMID: 28794592. PMCID: PMC5532893.

⁵ Fiard G, Chowdhury A, Potter AR, Pook CJ, Kelly D, Emberton M, Yap T. Detailing sexual outcomes after focal therapy for localised prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer. 2022;8(4):926–941. doi:10.1016/j.prca.2022.05.005.

⁶ Breyer BN, Kim SK, Kirkby E, Marianes A, Vanni AJ, Westney OL. Updates to Incontinence After Prostate Treatment: AUA/GURS/SUFU Guideline (2024). Journal of Urology [Internet]. 2024 Oct 1 [cited 2025 Apr 1];212(4):531–8.

⁷ E. Guenther, N. Klein, S. Zapf, S. Weil, C. Schlosser, B. Rubinsky, M. K. Stehling, “Prostate cancer treatment with Irreversible Electroporation (IRE): Safety, efficacy and clinical experience in 471 treatments.”, 2019.

⁸ Zhang, K., Stricker, P., Löhr, M. et al. A multi-center international study to evaluate the safety, functional and oncological outcomes of irreversible electroporation for the ablation of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 27, 525–530 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00783-y

⁹ Blazevski A, Scheltema MJ, Yuen B, et al. Oncological and functional outcomes of focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0215093. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0215093