Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30710157›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2019

Complications, oncological and functional outcomes of salvage treatment options following focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and a comprehensive narrative review.

Giancarlo Marra, Paolo Gontero, Jochen Christoph Walz, Arjun Sivaraman, Rafael Tourinho-Barbosa, Xavier Cathelineau, Rafael Sanchez-Salas

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Giancarlo MarraDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città Della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Paolo GonteroDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città Della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Jochen Christoph WalzDepartment of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Arjun SivaramanDepartment of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Rafael Tourinho-BarbosaDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Xavier CathelineauDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Rafael Sanchez-SalasDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. raersas@gmail.com.
Université Paris Cité · FRUniversity of Turin · ITInstitute Mutualiste Montsouris · FRInstitut Paoli-Calmettes · FRMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether focal therapy (FT) jeopardizes subsequent prostate cancer (PCa) salvage treatments, when needed, remains a major concern and is largely unknown.

objectivesTo describe and report safety, oncological and functional outcomes of salvage treatments following PCa recurrence and/or persistence after FT. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review on salvage treatments for PCa recurrence/persistence after FT was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines using an 'a priori protocol'. A comprehensive literature review was also performed to investigate options to treat FT PCa recurrence/persistence that have not yet been reported after FT.

resultsFour retrospective series were included (n = 67 men); overall quality of the studies was low. Salvage treatments yielded 32.8% (n = 22 of 67) biochemical recurrence rate (BCR) after a 7-62-months mean follow-up. No cancer-related deaths occurred. Patients experienced acceptable complications (n = 12 patients; n = 8 Clavien 3) and rare severe incontinence (4.5% using > 2 pads/day). Erectile function (EF) was rarely assessed (62.8% no information available), being overall poor. Other salvage options have been reported following whole-gland ablation and include: (1) re-do ablation yielding worst BCR and EF but similar complications and continence compared to first line ablation; (2) salvage radiotherapy yielding 16.6-38.8% BCR and acceptable toxicity profile with urinary and EF being poorly assessed.

conclusionsCurrent evidence is weak and limited to a few retrospective series. Oncological control is acceptable although it seems lower compared to a primary treatment setting. Functional outcomes are comparable to primary treatment with the exception of EF; overall, suggesting FT has little impact on subsequent salvage treatments. Future studies are needed to confirm the current findings.

Indexed as

Salvage TherapyDecision TreesHumansMaleProstatic NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeFocal therapyProstate cancerRadical prostatectomyRadiotherapyRecurrenceSalvage treatment

Identifiers

PMID30710157
OpenAlexW2913870380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.