Published in

MDPI, Current Oncology, 4(28), p. 2881-2892, 2021

DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28040252

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Radio-Recurrent Prostate Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review of Oncologic, Histopathologic and Functional Outcomes and Predictors of Good Response

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

A valid treatment option for recurrence after definite radiotherapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer (PC) is salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP). However, data on SRP are scarce, possibly resulting in an underutilization. A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase, and Web of Science databases including studies published between January 1980 and April 2020. Overall, 23 English language articles including a total number of 2323 patients were selected according to PRISMA criteria. The overall median follow-up was 37.5 months (IQR 35.5–52.5). Biochemical-recurrence (BCR)-free probability ranged from 34% to 83% at five years, respectively, and from 31% to 37% at 10 years. Cancer specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) ranged from 88.7% to 98% and 64% to 95% at five years and from 72% to 83% and 65% to 72% at 10 years, respectively. Positive surgical margins ranged from 14% to 45.8% and pathologic organ-confined disease was reported from 20% to 57%. The rate of pathologic > T2-disease ranged from 37% to 80% and pN1 disease differed between 0% to 78.4%. Pre-SRP PSA, pre-SRP Gleason Score (GS), pathologic stage after SRP, and pathologic lymph node involvement seemed to be the strongest prognostic factors for good outcomes. SRP provides accurate histopathological and functional outcomes, as well as durable cancer control. Careful patient counseling in a shared decision-making process is recommended.