Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39266730›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025

Salvage therapies for biochemical recurrence after definitive local treatment: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis.

Akihiro Matsukawa, Takafumi Yanagisawa, Tamas Fazekas, Marcin Miszczyk, Ichiro Tsuboi, Mehdi Kardoust Parizi, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Jakob Klemm, Stefano Mancon, Keiichiro Mori and 10 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Expert consensus recommendations for the management of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer: a Delphi study across clinical scenarios.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

20 authors.

Akihiro MatsukawaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3324-762X
Takafumi YanagisawaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7410-0712
Tamas FazekasDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Marcin MiszczykDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4375-0827
Ichiro TsuboiDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3135-8262
Mehdi Kardoust PariziDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ekaterina LaukhtinaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8953-0272
Jakob KlemmDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Stefano ManconDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Keiichiro MoriDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Shoji KimuraDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Jun MikiDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Juan Gomez RivasDepartment of Urology, Clinico San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0556-3035
Timo F W SoeterikDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0259-8750
Thomas ZilliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Derya TilkiDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7033-1380
Steven JoniauDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3195-9890
Takahiro KimuraDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5673-1553
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6627-6179
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4073-6584

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecent advancements in the management of biochemical recurrence (BCR) following local treatment for prostate cancer (PCa), including the use of androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs), have broadened the spectrum of therapeutic options. We aimed to compare salvage therapies in patients with BCR after definitive local treatment for clinically non-metastatic PCa with curative intent.

methodsIn October 2023, we queried PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies reporting data on the efficacy of salvage therapies in PCa patients with BCR after radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT). The primary endpoint was metastatic-free survival (MFS), and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

resultsWe included 19 studies (n = 9117); six trials analyzed RT-based strategies following RP, ten trials analyzed hormone-based strategies following RP ± RT or RT alone, and three trials analyzed other agents. In a pairwise meta-analysis, adding hormone therapy to salvage RT significantly improved MFS (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57-0.84, p < 0.001) compared to RT alone. Based on treatment ranking analysis, among RT-based strategies, the addition of elective nodal RT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was found to be the most effective in terms of MFS. On the other hand, among hormone-based strategies, enzalutamide + ADT showed the greatest benefit for both MFS and OS.

conclusionsThe combination of prostate bed RT, elective pelvic irradiation, and ADT is the preferred treatment for eligible patients with post-RP BCR based on our analysis. In remaining patients, or in case of post-RT recurrence, especially for those with high-risk BCR, the combination of ADT and ARSI should be considered.

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstatic NeoplasmsSalvage TherapyHumansMaleProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID39266730
PMCPMC12399422

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.