Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39090369›Full record

ReviewProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025

Salvage treatments after focal therapy for prostate cancer - a comprehensive review.

Lorenzo Storino Ramacciotti, Andre Luis Abreu, Sébastien Crouzet, Petr Macek, Brian J Miles, Rahim Horuz, Diogo Nunes-Carneiro, Phillip Stricker, Stephen Scionti, M Pilar Laguna

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Lorenzo Storino RamacciottiUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0615-9720
Andre Luis AbreuUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. andre.abreu@med.usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9167-2587
Sébastien CrouzetDepartment of Urology, Edouard Herriot Hospital, University of Lyon, Lyon, France.
Petr MacekInstitute Montsouris, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9021-7072
Brian J MilesDepartment of Urology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
Rahim HoruzMedipol Mega University Hospital. Department of Urology Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Diogo Nunes-CarneiroCentro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Department of Urology, ICBAS, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Phillip StrickerDepartment of Urology, St Vincents Private Hospital Sydney, St Vincents Prostate Cancer Research Centre and The Garvan Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0934-0656
Stephen SciontiVituro Health, Sarasota, FL, USA.
M Pilar LagunaMedipol Mega University Hospital. Department of Urology Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review the literature on salvage treatments after focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND

methodsA 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.

resultsTwenty-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.

conclusionSalvage 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.

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsSalvage TherapyHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID39090369

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.