CONTEXT: Whether focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PC) jeopardizes outcomes from salvage treatments is a matter of debate still to be resolved. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on oncological and functional outcomes and complications for available treatment options for recurrent or residual PC after primary FT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a nonsystematic search of PubMed for articles assessing relevant outcomes for salvage local treatment after FT failure using a manual search. When no evidence could be extracted for the FT domain, records dealing with recurrence after whole-gland ablation were considered. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Four retrospective series assessed salvage treatments after FT failure evaluating cases of radical prostatectomy (RP) and repeat ablation (sample size from 12 to 22 patients). The quality of the studies was low, with a high risk of bias. Other options are radiation therapy (RT) and whole-gland or focal repeat ablations, although these have only been described after whole-gland ablation. With some exceptions, including sexual function for RP, overall complications and oncological and functional outcomes do seem to be acceptable and are not much worse than those in the primary setting. Important limitations include the low level of the evidence and the absence of standardized criteria for FT, salvage treatment, and FT failure. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence shows acceptable outcomes for post-FT salvage options, although this is based on retrospective data. While it seems that FT has a minimal impact on salvage treatment results, prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm these preliminary data. PATIENT SUMMARY: We performed a literature search to determine the treatment options available for prostate cancer after failure of focal therapy and their outcomes. Options include radical prostatectomy, repeat whole-gland ablation, focal ablation, and radiotherapy. Overall cancer control, impacts on urinary and sexual function, and complications seem slightly worse but not markedly different compared to primary treatments, but high-quality studies are awaited to confirm these findings
