ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Cryotherapy versus radical prostatectomy as a salvage treatment for radio-recurrent prostate cancer.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study is to compare outcomes of SRP (salvage radical prostatectomy) with SCAP (salvage cryoablation of the prostate) in local radio-recurrent PCa (prostate cancer) patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of a multicentric European Society of Uro-technology (ESUT) database was performed. Data on patients with local recurrent PCa after radiotherapy who underwent salvage treatment were collected. Patients and their respective disease characteristics, perioperative complications as well as oncological outcomes were then described. The treatment success rate was defined as PSA nadir < 0,4 ng/ml. Any complications were graded according to the modified Clavien system. A descriptive and comparative analysis was performed using SPSS software.
results25 patients underwent SRP and 71 patients received SCAP. The mean follow-up was 24 months. The median PSA level before initial treatment was 8.3 (range 7-127) ng/ml. The success rates of SRP and SCAP were largely comparable (88% (22 patients) vs. 67.7% (48 patients), respectively, p = 0.216). The mean serum PSA levels at 12 months after salvage treatment were 1.2 ± 0.2 ng/mL vs. 0.25 ± 0.5 ng/mL, p > 0.05). During the follow-up period, only 3 (12%) patients in the SRP group had PSA recurrence compared with 21 patients (29.6%) in the SCAP group. The 5-year BRFS was similar (51,6% and 48,2%, p = 0,08) for SRP and SCAP respectively. The 5-year overall survival rate was 91.7%, and 89,7% (p = 0.669) and the 5-year cancer-specific survival was 91.7%, and 97,1% (p = 0.077), after SRP and SCAP respectively. No difference was found regarding the complications.
conclusionsBoth SRP and SCAP should be considered as valid treatment options for patients with local recurrence of PCa after radiotherapy. SCAP has a potentially lower risk of morbidity and acceptable intermediate-term oncological efficacy, but a longer follow up and a higher number of patients is ideally needed to draw any long-term conclusions regarding the oncological data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39259304What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.