ArticleThe Prostate2025
Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Salvage Radical Prostatectomy in Patients Primarily Treated With Focal Versus Radiation Therapy: A Junior ERUS/YAU Collaborative Study.
Article in The Prostate, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends and thematic evolution in salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy or focal therapy: a bibliometric and visualisation study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Salvage Prostatectomy: External Validation of the EAU Selection Criteria and Identification of the Optimal Candidate: A Junior ERUS/YAU Collaborative Study.The Prostate · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate surgical and cancer-control outcome differences in robotic salvage radical prostatectomy (s-RARP) patients after primary prostate cancer treatment with radiation (RT) versus focal therapy (FT).
methodsThe Junior ERUS/Young Academic Urologist Working Group Robotics in Urology conducted a multicentric project to investigate biochemical recurrence-free (BCR), metastases-free (MFS) and overall survival outcomes in s-RARP patients primarily treated with RT versus FT.
resultsOverall, 439 s-RARP patients qualified for analyses, of which 54% initially received RT with a median time interval between primary cancer treatment and s-RARP of 48 months. Patients with RT more frequently exhibited unfavorable oncological characteristics before s-RARP (PSA, ISUP score), as well as pathological ISUP score (all ≤ 0.01), relative to FT patients. No differences in postoperative complications were observed (p > 0.9). In BCR-free analyses, no significant differences between RT and FT were observed (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.30, p = 0.2). In MFS and OS analyses, patients with RT harbored a higher risk of metastases (HR: 10.1, p < 0.001) and death (HR: 5.1, p = 0.02), relative to FT s-RARP patients, but not after multivariable adjustment. In subgroup analyses of 201 FT patients, 80% received high-intensified focused ultrasound (HIFU). No difference in BCR-free survival was observed for HIFU- versus non-HIFU s-RARP patients (p = 0.9).
conclusionsImportant differences in tumor characteristics between RT versus FT s-RARP patients exist. These baseline differences translate into unfavorable short-term MFS- and OS outcomes for RT s-RARP patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.