PURPOSE: Current salvage treatments for recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiation therapy include radical prostatectomy, cryosurgery and brachytherapy. Because toxicity and failure rates are considerable, salvage treatments are not commonly performed. As most centers perform only one preferred salvage technique, the literature only describes single-center outcomes from a single salvage technique with a limited number of patients. In this overview, five high-volume Dutch centers describe their toxicity and outcome data using different salvage techniques. This provides a view on how salvage is performed in clinical practice in The Netherlands. METHODS: A total of 129 patients from five different centers in the Netherlands were retrospectively analyzed. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as PSA >0.1 ng/ml for the salvage prostatectomy group (n = 44) and PSA nadir + 2.0 ng/ml (Phoenix definition) for the salvage cryosurgery (n = 54) and salvage brachytherapy group (n = 31). Toxicity was scored according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse events (CTCAE v3.0). RESULTS: BF occurred in 25 (81%) patients in the brachytherapy group (mean follow-up 29 ± 24 months), 29 (66%) patients in the prostatectomy group (mean follow-up 22 ± 25 months) and 33 (61%) patients in the cryosurgery group (mean follow-up 14 ± 11 months). Severe (grade >3) genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in up to 30% of patients in all three groups. CONCLUSION: This overview shows clinical practice of prostate cancer salvage. Significant failure and toxicity rates are observed, regardless of salvage technique. Patients should be selected with great care before offering these salvage treatment strategies.
PURPOSE: Current salvage treatments for recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiation therapy include radical prostatectomy, cryosurgery and brachytherapy. Because toxicity and failure rates are considerable, salvage treatments are not commonly performed. As most centers perform only one preferred salvage technique, the literature only describes single-center outcomes from a single salvage technique with a limited number of patients. In this overview, five high-volume Dutch centers describe their toxicity and outcome data using different salvage techniques. This provides a view on how salvage is performed in clinical practice in The Netherlands. METHODS: A total of 129 patients from five different centers in the Netherlands were retrospectively analyzed. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as PSA >0.1 ng/ml for the salvage prostatectomy group (n = 44) and PSA nadir + 2.0 ng/ml (Phoenix definition) for the salvage cryosurgery (n = 54) and salvage brachytherapy group (n = 31). Toxicity was scored according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse events (CTCAE v3.0). RESULTS: BF occurred in 25 (81%) patients in the brachytherapy group (mean follow-up 29 ± 24 months), 29 (66%) patients in the prostatectomy group (mean follow-up 22 ± 25 months) and 33 (61%) patients in the cryosurgery group (mean follow-up 14 ± 11 months). Severe (grade >3) genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in up to 30% of patients in all three groups. CONCLUSION: This overview shows clinical practice of prostate cancer salvage. Significant failure and toxicity rates are observed, regardless of salvage technique. Patients should be selected with great care before offering these salvage treatment strategies.
Authors: Mark K Buyyounouski; Alexandra L Hanlon; Debra F Eisenberg; Eric M Horwitz; Steven J Feigenberg; Robert G Uzzo; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Fernando J Bianco; Christopher J DiBlasio; Paul A Fearn; James A Eastham Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: G L Grado; J M Collins; J S Kriegshauser; C S Balch; M M Grado; G P Swanson; T R Larson; M M Wilkes; R J Navickis Journal: Urology Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Hashim Uddin Ahmed; Doug Pendse; Rowland Illing; Clare Allen; Jan H P van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Nat Clin Pract Oncol Date: 2007-11
Authors: Masoom A Haider; Peter Chung; Joan Sweet; Ants Toi; Kartik Jhaveri; Cynthia Ménard; Padraig Warde; John Trachtenberg; Gina Lockwood; Michael Milosevic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Maaike R Moman; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Arto E Boeken Kruger; Jan J Battermann; Marinus A Moerland; Uulke A van der Heide; Marco van Vulpen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Duke K Bahn; Fred Lee; Paul Silverman; Eric Bahn; Robert Badalament; Anil Kumar; Jeffrey Greski; John C Rewcastle Journal: Clin Prostate Cancer Date: 2003-09
Authors: Piyush K Agarwal; Natalia Sadetsky; Badrinath R Konety; Martin I Resnick; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Metha Maenhout; Marco van Vulpen; Marinus Moerland; Max Peters; Richard Meijer; Maurice van den Bosch; Paul Nguyen; Steven Frank; Jochem van der Voort van Zyp Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2017-04-03
Authors: Metha Maenhout; Max Peters; Marco van Vulpen; Marinus A Moerland; Richard P Meijer; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Paul L Nguyen; Steven J Frank; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-12-05