Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30955047›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2019

Is it worth to perform salvage radical prostatectomy for radio-recurrent prostate cancer? A literature review.

Giorgio Calleris, Giancarlo Marra, Ettore Dalmasso, Marco Falcone, Robert Jeffrey Karnes, Alessandro Morlacco, Marco Oderda, Rafael Sanchez-Salas, Francesco Soria, Paolo Gontero

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

10 authors.

Giorgio CallerisDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, C.so Bramante 88/90, 10100, Turin, Italy.
Giancarlo MarraDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, C.so Bramante 88/90, 10100, Turin, Italy. drgiancarlomarra@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2363-026X
Ettore DalmassoDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, C.so Bramante 88/90, 10100, Turin, Italy.
Marco FalconeDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, C.so Bramante 88/90, 10100, Turin, Italy.
Robert Jeffrey KarnesDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Alessandro MorlaccoClinica Urologica, Dipartimento di Scienze chirurgiche, oncologiche e gastroenterologiche, Università degli Studi di Padova, Padua, Italy.
Marco OderdaDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, C.so Bramante 88/90, 10100, Turin, Italy.
Rafael Sanchez-SalasDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Francesco SoriaDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, C.so Bramante 88/90, 10100, Turin, Italy.
Paolo GonteroDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, C.so Bramante 88/90, 10100, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSalvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) represents a curative option for prostate cancer (PCa) biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radiation therapy (RT). In this review, we aimed to outline the contemporary results and use of sRP.

methodsA web search was performed on the Ovid platform using Embase and Medline databases from January 2010 using pre-defined search terms. Web search was implemented by manual search. Oncological and functional outcomes and complications were summarized using standard classification systems, when feasible.

resultssRP is currently underused, being chosen for radio-recurrent PCa treatment in around 1% of the cases. Surgery is complex due to radiation-induced tissue changes making posterior planes and apex dissection particularly challenging. Patient selection is paramount to maximize the oncological benefit. Most series report a BCR-free survival > 60%, mainly at the end of a short- to intermediate-term follow-up. Five-year progression-free survival is nearly 50% and 5-year cancer-specific survival rates are around 90%. Major peri-operative complications, anastomotic leaks and strictures, still more frequent than in a primary RP setting, have been steering towards more acceptable rates in recent years, when compared to historical series. Continence rates are widely variable, often in between 39 and 60%. Potency remains difficult to recover.

conclusionssRP represents a curative option with promising short- to medium-term oncological results and acceptable side effects, in high-volume institutions. In appropriately selected patients, the procedure should not be underused due to the fear of poor functional outcomes and/or complications. Prospective studies are needed to assess the long-term outcomes and to further refine patient selection criteria.

Indexed as

Salvage TherapyHumansMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsProstate cancerRadical prostatectomyRadiotherapyRecurrenceSalvage treatment

Identifiers

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.