Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30513915›Full record

ReviewCancers2018

Focal Salvage Treatment of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review of Current Strategies and Future Perspectives.

Marieke van Son, Max Peters, Marinus Moerland, Linda Kerkmeijer, Jan Lagendijk, Jochem van der Voort van Zyp

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Stereotactic reirradiation with CyberknifeLa Radiologia medica · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Ablative options for prostate cancer management.Turkish journal of urology · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Marieke van SonDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.J.vanSon-2@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1886-6385
Max PetersDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.Peters-10@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-7981-5768
Marinus MoerlandDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.A.Moerland@umcutrecht.nl.
Linda KerkmeijerDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. L.Kerkmeijer@umcutrecht.nl.
Jan LagendijkDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. J.J.W.Lagendijk@umcutrecht.nl.
Jochem van der Voort van ZypDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. J.R.N.vanderVoortvanZyp@umcutrecht.nl.
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 10932
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last decades, primary prostate cancer radiotherapy saw improving developments, such as more conformal dose administration and hypofractionated treatment regimens. Still, prostate cancer recurrences after whole-gland radiotherapy remain common, especially in patients with intermediate- to high-risk disease. The vast majority of these patients are treated palliatively with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which exposes them to harmful side-effects and is only effective for a limited amount of time. For patients with a localized recurrent tumor and no signs of metastatic disease, local treatment with curative intent seems more rational. However, whole-gland salvage treatments such as salvage radiotherapy or salvage prostatectomy are associated with significant toxicity and are, therefore, uncommonly performed. Treatments that are solely aimed at the recurrent tumor itself, thereby better sparing the surrounding organs at risk, potentially provide a safer salvage treatment option in terms of toxicity. To achieve such tumor-targeted treatment, imaging developments have made it possible to better exclude metastatic disease and accurately discriminate the tumor. Currently, focal salvage treatment is being performed with different modalities, including brachytherapy, cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Oncologic outcomes seem comparable to whole-gland salvage series, but with much lower toxicity rates. In terms of oncologic control, these results will improve further with better understanding of patient selection. Other developments, such as high-field diagnostic MRI and live adaptive MRI-guided radiotherapy, will further improve precision of the treatment.

Indexed as

focal therapylocalized recurrenceprostate cancersalvage

Identifiers

PMID30513915
PMCPMC6316339
OpenAlexW2902691734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.