ArticleThe Prostate2026
Robot-Assisted Salvage Prostatectomy: External Validation of the EAU Selection Criteria and Identification of the Optimal Candidate: A Junior ERUS/YAU Collaborative Study.
Article in The Prostate, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEAU guidelines recommend salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) only in highly selected patients with recurrent prostate cancer in experienced centers.
methodsThe Junior ERUS/Young Academic Urologist Working Group on Robot-Assisted Surgery conducted a multicentric project to investigate biochemical recurrence-free (BCR), metastases-free (MFS), and overall survival (OS) outcomes in robotic sRP patients stratified according to EAU criteria.
resultsOf 180 patients, 49% fulfilled EAU criteria. Patients not fulfilling EAU criteria more frequently underwent focal therapy as primary treatment (53% vs. 33%) and exhibited significantly higher rates of pT3-4 (70% vs. 48%), positive surgical margins (48% vs. 24%), and pathological Gleason score 8-10 (72% vs. 48%, all p < 0.01), with no differences in postoperative complications. Rates of PSA persistence were significantly higher in patients not fulfilling EAU criteria (16% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). Regarding BCR, patients not fulfilling EAU criteria harbored significantly worse BCR-free survival (hazard ratio (HR): 1.96, p = 0.046) with 24- and 48-month BCR-free survival rates of 81.7% and 73.9% vs. 65.0% and 58.5% for patients fulfilling EAU criteria. After multivariable adjustment, patients not fulfilling EAU criteria harbored higher risk of BCR (HR: 2.94, p = 0.045). Regarding MFS and OS outcomes, no significant differences were observed in the comparison between both groups. Incorporating presalvage surgery features into a new classification yielded better discrimination for BCR analysis, but were comparable to EAU criteria for MFS and OS outcomes.
conclusionsThe majority of patients do not fulfill EAU criteria, and even more so after focal therapy. These patients harbor worse BCR rates after robotic sRP. However, within our short-term follow-up, no differences in MFS and OS were observed.
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.