Brecht Devos1, Walid Al Hajj Obeid2,3, Colin Andrianne3, Romain Diamand3, Alexandre Peltier3, Wouter Everaerts4, Hein Van Poppel4, Roland Van Velthoven3, Steven Joniau5. 1. KU Leuven, Faculty of Medicine, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Department of Urology, Saint George Hospital University Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. 3. Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Steven.Joniau@uzleuven.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare oncological, functional, and toxicity outcomes of patients with radiation-recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy (BT) treated with salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (S-HIFU) or salvage radical prostatectomy (S-RP). METHODS: This retrospective study compared 52 patients with radiation-recurrent PCa after EBRT or BT treated with S-HIFU (n = 27) or S-RP (n = 25) between 1998 and 2016. We estimated overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) at 5 years. Incontinence after local salvage therapy (LST) was scored according to the number of pads used per day. Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Both groups were similar for pre-LST tumor features, however, no S-HIFU patients received BT and S-RP patients were younger and healthier. Median follow-up was 45 months for S-HIFU and 43 months for S-RP. No significant differences were found in estimated 5-year OS (80.9% vs. 61.9%, p = 0.24), 5-year CSS (84.0% vs. 74.0%, p = 0.36), and 5-year MFS (60.3% vs. 55.2%, p = 0.55) for S-HIFU vs. S-RP, respectively. We observed a significant difference in pad-dependent status at 12 months (22.2% vs. 56.0%, p = 0.01) and in the number of Clavien ≥ III complications [9 (7/27 patients) vs. 16 (12/25 patients), p = 0.027] in favor of S-HIFU vs. S-RP, respectively. CONCLUSION: S-HIFU and S-RP could both be considered valuable LST options for patients with radiation-recurrent nonmetastatic PCa with sufficient life expectancy. S-RP is associated with more pad-dependent patients at 12 months.
PURPOSE: To compare oncological, functional, and toxicity outcomes of patients with radiation-recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy (BT) treated with salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (S-HIFU) or salvage radical prostatectomy (S-RP). METHODS: This retrospective study compared 52 patients with radiation-recurrent PCa after EBRT or BT treated with S-HIFU (n = 27) or S-RP (n = 25) between 1998 and 2016. We estimated overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) at 5 years. Incontinence after local salvage therapy (LST) was scored according to the number of pads used per day. Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Both groups were similar for pre-LST tumor features, however, no S-HIFUpatients received BT and S-RPpatients were younger and healthier. Median follow-up was 45 months for S-HIFU and 43 months for S-RP. No significant differences were found in estimated 5-year OS (80.9% vs. 61.9%, p = 0.24), 5-year CSS (84.0% vs. 74.0%, p = 0.36), and 5-year MFS (60.3% vs. 55.2%, p = 0.55) for S-HIFU vs. S-RP, respectively. We observed a significant difference in pad-dependent status at 12 months (22.2% vs. 56.0%, p = 0.01) and in the number of Clavien ≥ III complications [9 (7/27 patients) vs. 16 (12/25 patients), p = 0.027] in favor of S-HIFU vs. S-RP, respectively. CONCLUSION:S-HIFU and S-RP could both be considered valuable LST options for patients with radiation-recurrent nonmetastatic PCa with sufficient life expectancy. S-RP is associated with more pad-dependent patients at 12 months.
Authors: Behfar Ehdaie; Coral L Atoria; Amit Gupta; Andrew Feifer; William T Lowrance; Michael J Morris; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Elena B Elkin Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Daher C Chade; James Eastham; Markus Graefen; Jim C Hu; R Jeffrey Karnes; Laurence Klotz; Francesco Montorsi; Hendrik van Poppel; Peter T Scardino; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mack Roach; Gerald Hanks; Howard Thames; Paul Schellhammer; William U Shipley; Gerald H Sokol; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sebastien Crouzet; Andreas Blana; Francois J Murat; Gilles Pasticier; Stephen C W Brown; Giario N Conti; Roman Ganzer; Olivier Chapet; Albert Gelet; Christian G Chaussy; Cary N Robertson; Stefan Thuroff; John F Ward Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Matthijs J Scheltema; Willemien van den Bos; Amila R Siriwardana; Anton M F Kalsbeek; James E Thompson; Francis Ting; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Ron Shnier; Warick Delprado; Phillip D Stricker Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Michel Bolla; Geertjan Van Tienhoven; Padraig Warde; Jean Bernard Dubois; René-Olivier Mirimanoff; Guy Storme; Jacques Bernier; Abraham Kuten; Cora Sternberg; Ignace Billiet; José Lopez Torecilla; Raphael Pfeffer; Carmel Lino Cutajar; Theodore Van der Kwast; Laurence Collette Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Christopher C Khoo; Saiful Miah; Martin J Connor; Joseph Tam; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed; Taimur T Shah Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2020-06