Salvage treatments after focal therapy for prostate cancer - a comprehensive review.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
07
06
2024
accepted:
15
07
2024
revised:
09
07
2024
medline:
2
8
2024
pubmed:
2
8
2024
entrez:
1
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To review the literature on salvage treatments after focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). A non-systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to March 15, 2024, for studies that assessed salvage treatment outcomes in patients with recurrent PCa after primary FT. Original prospective and retrospective studies with more than 10 patients were included. Reviews, editorial comments, conference abstracts, and studies focusing solely on whole-gland treatments were excluded. Twenty-one studies with a total of 1012 patients were included. The most reported salvage treatments were salvage radical prostatectomy followed by re-do ablation therapy. Only one study evaluated salvage radiation therapy. Except for one prospective study, all studies were retrospective. Oncological outcomes showed acceptable biochemical recurrence rates. Functional outcomes varied, with significant impacts observed on erectile function across modalities, though continence rates were less impacted. Complications were generally low across all treatment options. Salvage treatment post-primary FT is feasible, safe, and has reasonable oncologic outcomes. However, significant declines in sexual function are common, while continence is comparatively less affected. The literature primarily consists of retrospective studies; hence, future research should focus on large-scale prospective evaluations to better define treatment protocols and improve patient outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39090369
doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00875-3
pii: 10.1038/s41391-024-00875-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Abreu AL, Peretsman S, Iwata A, Shakir A, Iwata T, Brooks J, et al. High intensity focused ultrasound hemigland ablation for prostate cancer: initial outcomes of a United States Series. J Urol. 2020;204:741–7.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001126
pubmed: 32898975
Abreu AL, Kaneko M, Cacciamani GE, Lebastchi AH. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: getting ready for prime time. Eur Urol. 2022;81:34–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.10.005
pubmed: 34740501
Hopstaken JS, Bomers JGR, Sedelaar MJP, Valerio M, Fütterer JJ, Rovers MM. An updated systematic review on focal therapy in localized prostate cancer: what has changed over the past 5 years? Eur Urol. 2022;81:5–33.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.08.005
pubmed: 34489140
Ghoreifi A, Kaneko M, Peretsman S, Iwata A, Brooks J, Shakir A, et al. Patient-reported satisfaction and regret following focal therapy for prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter evaluation. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;50:10–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.003
pubmed: 37101771
pmcid: 10123415
Reddy D, Peters M, Shah TT, van Son M, Tanaka MB, Huber PM, et al. Cancer control outcomes following focal therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasound in 1379 men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer: a multi-institute 15-year experience. Eur Urol. 2022;81:407–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.005
pubmed: 35123819
van Son MJ, Peters M, Reddy D, Shah TT, Hosking-Jervis F, Robinson S, et al. Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24:1120–8.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00369-6
pubmed: 33934114
Marra G, Valerio M, Emberton M, Heidenreich A, Crook JM, Bossi A, et al. Salvage local treatments after focal therapy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:526–38.
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.008
pubmed: 31412013
Marra G, Marquis A, Yanagisawa T, Shariat SF, Touijer K, Gontero P. Salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after primary nonsurgical treatment: an updated systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:251–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.013
pubmed: 36822924
Chang X, Liu T, Zhang F, Zhao X, Ji C, Yang R, et al. Salvage cryosurgery for locally recurrent prostate cancer after primary cryotherapy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47:301–5.
doi: 10.1007/s11255-014-0887-7
pubmed: 25510358
Lebdai S, Villers A, Barret E, Nedelcu C, Bigot P, Azzouzi AR. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of salvage radical prostatectomy after Tookad® Soluble focal treatment for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2015;33:965–71.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1493-8
pubmed: 25614256
Linares Espinós E, Sánchez-Salas R, Sivaraman A, Perez-Reggeti JI, Barret E, Rozet F, et al. Minimally invasive salvage prostatectomy after primary radiation or ablation treatment. Urology. 2016;94:111–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.04.040
pubmed: 27154045
Nunes-Silva I, Barret E, Srougi V, Baghdadi M, Capogrosso P, Garcia-Barreras S, et al. Effect of prior focal therapy on perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes of salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2017;198:1069–76.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.071
pubmed: 28551444
Marconi L, Stonier T, Tourinho-Barbosa R, Moore C, Ahmed HU, Cathelineau X, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after focal therapy: oncological, functional outcomes and predictors of recurrence. Eur Urol. 2019;76:27–30.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.03.007
pubmed: 30904357
Pierrard V, Lebdai S, Kleinclauss F, Azzouzi AR, Terrier JE, Fortier E, et al. Radical prostatectomy after vascular targeted photodynamic therapy with padeliporfin: feasibility, and early and intermediate results. J Urol. 2019;201:315–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.08.084
pubmed: 30248343
De Groote R, Nathan A, De Bleser E, Pavan N, Sridhar A, Kelly J, et al. Techniques and outcomes of salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP). Eur Urol. 2020;78:885–92.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.003
pubmed: 32461073
Herrera-Caceres JO, Nason GJ, Salgado-Sanmamed N, Goldberg H, Woon DTS, Chandrasekar T, et al. Salvage radical prostatectomy following focal therapy: functional and oncological outcomes. BJU Int. 2020;125:525–30.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14976
pubmed: 31863617
Lovegrove CE, Peters M, Guillaumier S, Arya M, Afzal N, Dudderidge T, et al. Evaluation of functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) procedure in men with primary localized, non-metastatic prostate cancer: results from the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry. BJU Int. 2020;125:853–60.
doi: 10.1111/bju.15004
pubmed: 31971335
Onol FF, Bhat S, Moschovas M, Rogers T, Ganapathi H, Roof S, et al. Comparison of outcomes of salvage robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for post-primary radiation vs focal therapy. BJU Int. 2020;125:103–11.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14900
pubmed: 31430422
Thompson JE, Sridhar AN, Shaw G, Rajan P, Mohammed A, Briggs TP, et al. Peri-operative, functional and early oncologic outcomes of salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after high-intensity focused ultrasound partial ablation. BMC Urol. 2020;20:81.
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00656-9
pubmed: 32611411
pmcid: 7329479
Cathcart P, Ribeiro L, Moore C, Ahmed HU, Leslie T, Arya M, et al. Outcomes of the RAFT trial: robotic surgery after focal therapy. BJU Int. 2021;128:504–10.
doi: 10.1111/bju.15432
pubmed: 33891378
Nathan A, Fricker M, De Groote R, Arora A, Phuah Y, Flora K, et al. Salvage versus primary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity-matched comparative effectiveness study from a high-volume tertiary centre. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021;27:43–52.
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.03.003
pubmed: 33997823
pmcid: 8090976
Ribeiro L, Stonier T, Stroman L, Tourinho-Barbosa R, Alghazo O, Winkler M, et al. Is the toxicity of salvage prostatectomy related to the primary prostate cancer therapy received? J Urol. 2021;205:791–9.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001382
pubmed: 33021441
Spitznagel T, Hardenberg JV, Schmid FA, Rupp NJ, Westhoff N, Worst TS, et al. Salvage robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound for ISUP 2/3 cancer. Urology 2021;156:147–53.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.04.059
pubmed: 34186136
von Hardenberg J, Cash H, Koch D, Borkowetz A, Bruendl J, Leyh-Bannurah SR, et al. Triggers and oncologic outcome of salvage radical prostatectomy, salvage radiotherapy and active surveillance after focal therapy of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2021;39:3747–54.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03700-x
Bhat KRS, Covas Moschovas M, Sandri M, Noel J, Reddy S, Perera R, et al. Outcomes of salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after focal ablation for prostate cancer in comparison to primary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a matched analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:1192–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.10.005
pubmed: 34736871
Blazevski A, Gondoputro W, Scheltema MJ, Amin A, Geboers B, Barreto D, et al. Salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy following focal ablation with irreversible electroporation: feasibility, oncological and functional outcomes. BMC Urol. 2022;22:28.
doi: 10.1186/s12894-022-00978-w
pubmed: 35236338
pmcid: 8892750
Qaoud Y, Herrera-Caceres JO, Bass R, Berjaoui MB, Tiwari R, Kenk M, et al. Salvage partial gland ablation for recurrent prostate cancer following primary partial gland ablation: functional and oncological outcomes. Urol Oncol. 2022;40:343.e1–e6.
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.03.019
pubmed: 35537905
van Riel L, Geboers B, Kabaktepe E, Blazevski A, Reesink DJ, Stijns P, et al. Outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy after initial irreversible electroporation treatment for recurrent prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2022;130:611–8.
doi: 10.1111/bju.15759
pubmed: 35474600
pmcid: 9790506
Bhat KRS, Nathan A, Moschovas MC, Nathan S, Patel VR. Outcomes of salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients who had primary focal versus whole-gland ablation: a multicentric study. J Robot Surg. 2023;17:2995–3003.
doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01738-0
pubmed: 37903973
Horwitz EM, Thames HD, Kuban DA, Levy LB, Kupelian PA, Martinez AA, et al. Definitions of biochemical failure that best predict clinical failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation alone: a multi-institutional pooled analysis. J Urol. 2005;173:797–802.
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000152556.53602.64
pubmed: 15711272
dos Santos CPD, Tourinho-Barbosa RR, Pazeto CL, Marra G, Cathelineau X, Macek P, et al. Salvage treatment after focal therapy for recurrent prostate cancer. In: Goonewardene SS, Persad R, Ventii K, Albala D, Cahill D, editors. Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 133–42.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-57181-8_12
Priester A, Natarajan S, Khoshnoodi P, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, Reiter RE, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging underestimation of prostate cancer geometry: use of patient specific molds to correlate images with whole mount pathology. J Urol. 2017;197:320–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.084
pubmed: 27484386
Le Nobin J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villers A, Orczyk C, Deng F-M, Melamed J, et al. Image guided focal therapy for magnetic resonance imaging visible prostate cancer: defining a 3-dimensional treatment margin based on magnetic resonance imaging histology co-registration analysis. J Urol. 2015;194:364–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.080
pubmed: 25711199
pmcid: 4726648
Aslim EJ, Law YXT, Fook-Chong SMC, Ho HSS, Yuen JSP, Lau WKO, et al. Defining prostate cancer size and treatment margin for focal therapy: does intralesional heterogeneity impact the performance of multiparametric MRI? BJU Int. 2021;128:178–86.
doi: 10.1111/bju.15355
pubmed: 33539650
pmcid: 8360156
Truong M, Yang B, Livermore A, Wagner J, Weeratunga P, Huang W, et al. Using the epigenetic field defect to detect prostate cancer in biopsy negative patients. J Urol. 2013;189:2335–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.074
pubmed: 23159584
Tourinho-Barbosa RR, Sanchez-Salas R, Claros OR, Collura-Merlier S, Bakavicius A, Carneiro A, et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer with either high intensity focused ultrasound or cryoablation: a single institution experience. J Urol. 2020;203:320–30.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000506
pubmed: 31437121
Tay KJ, Amin MB, Ghai S, Jimenez RE, Kench JG, Klotz L, et al. Surveillance after prostate focal therapy. World J Urol. 2019;37:397–407.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2363-y
pubmed: 29948045
Lebastchi AH, George AK, Polascik TJ, Coleman J, de la Rosette J, Turkbey B, et al. Standardized nomenclature and surveillance methodologies after focal therapy and partial gland ablation for localized prostate cancer: an international multidisciplinary consensus. Eur Urol. 2020;78:371–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.018
pubmed: 32532513
pmcid: 8966411
Singh S, Martin E, Tregidgo HFJ, Treeby B, Bandula S. Prostatic calcifications: quantifying occurrence, radiodensity, and spatial distribution in prostate cancer patients. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:728.e1–e6.
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.12.028
pubmed: 33485763