Functional Outcomes after Local Salvage Therapies for Radiation-Recurrent Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review
by
, , , ,
Mohammad Abufaraj
1,2, 
Abdelmuez Siyam
2,
Mustafa Rami Ali
2
,
Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola
3
,
Lin Yang
4,5
,
Beat Foerster
6 and
Shahrokh F. Shariat
1,2,7,8,9,10,* 1
Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, A-1080 Vienna, Austria
2
Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, 11942 Amman, Jordan
3
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg—Medical Centre, 79098 Freiburg, Germany
4
Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2S 3C3, Canada
5
Departments of Oncology and Community Health Sciences, Cumming school of medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
6
Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland
7
Institute for Urology and Human Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119992 Moscow, Russia
8
Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA
9
Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY 10075, USA
10
Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2021, 13(2), 244; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13020244
Submission received: 1 December 2020
/
Revised: 5 January 2021
/
Accepted: 8 January 2021
/
Published: 11 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Adenocarcinoma)
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Local salvage therapies are offered to prostate cancer (PCa) patients with recurrent disease following primary radiation therapy with initial curative intent. Favorable oncologic outcome is the primary aim of salvage therapy, but many patients may be left with treatment-related adverse consequences, potentially affecting their quality of living. The aim of this review was to evaluate the rates and severity of various functional outcomes after salvage therapy in patients with radiation recurrent PCa. Local salvage therapies are associated with impaired urinary and sexual functions depending on the specific salvage strategy. However, accurate estimation of the likelihood of these sequalae may be predictable based on the high pre-salvage general and disease specific health status. Despite these adverse consequences and impaired quality of life, oncologic advantage of local salvage treatment post radiation recurrence prostate cancer seems justified in general, but shared decision working with an informed patient is essential. This paper serves as a discussion platform for this process.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the rate and severity of functional outcomes after salvage therapy for radiation recurrent prostate cancer. Methods: This systematic review of the MEDLINE/PubMed database yielded 35 studies, evaluating salvage radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT), high-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU) and cryotherapy (CT) after failure of primary radiation therapy. Data on pre- and post-salvage rates and severity of functional outcomes (urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and lower urinary tract symptoms) were collected from each study. Results: The rates of severe urinary incontinence ranged from 28–88%, 4.5–42%, 0–6.5%, 2.4–8% post salvage RP, HIFU, CT and BT, respectively. The rates of erectile dysfunction were relatively high reaching as much as 90%, 94.6%, 100%, 62% following RP, HIFU, CT and BT, respectively. Nonetheless, the high pre-salvage rates of ED preclude accurate estimation of the effect of salvage therapy. There was an increase in the median IPSS following salvage HIFU, BT and CT ranging from 2.5–3.4, 3.5–12, and 2, respectively. Extended follow-up showed a return-to-baseline IPSS in a salvage BT study. The reported data suffer from selection, reporting, publication and period of study biases, making inter-study comparisons inappropriate. Conclusions: local salvage therapies for radiation recurrent PCa affect continence, lower urinary tract symptoms and sexual functions. The use of local salvage therapies may be warranted in the setting of local disease control, but each individual decision must be made with the informed patient in a shared decision working process.
1. Introduction
The prevalence of prostate cancer (PCa) has been steadily increasing over the last few decades. The Global Burden of Disease study demonstrated a 3.7-fold rise in PCa incident cases between 1990 and 2015. This, together with the relatively modest PCa mortality and aging population, has generated a large pool of PCa survivors [1]. Despite the recent advances in PCa diagnosis and treatment, the burden of PCa remains significant, and PCa still constitutes the fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in the male population worldwide [2]. In addition, the economic burden of PCa management, in the United States alone, is considered the highest rising costs among all malignancies [3]. Furthermore, patients with PCa may suffer from disease- and treatment-related adverse events. [3].
There are several standard and widely used treatment options for patients with non-metastatic PCa, including external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), and radical prostatectomy (RP) [4]. Elderly patients with several comorbidities and limited life expectancy are less likely to undergo RP and consequently, with a proportionally increasing probability, receive radiation therapy (RT) [5,6]. Many other patients opt for RT because of other reasons, including the desire to avoid adverse events of RP [7,8]. The use of escalated dose radiotherapy is taking over conventional control-dose radiation as the results of randomized trials have shown that dose escalation has superior benefit in terms of biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates, local disease progression and distant metastasis [9,10]. Despite curative intent, a significant proportion of these patients ultimately experience PCa recurrence. Biochemical recurrence is estimated to affect 32–57% in control-dose RT and 16–43% in escalated dose RT after 10-years follow-up [10,11]. BCR is, in fact, a robust surrogate of clinical disease recurrence, including local recurrence and distant metastasis [12,13,14].
The rapid advancement in diagnostic imaging has improved the sensitivity of tumor staging and detecting small metastatic deposits, decreasing the number of patients diagnosed with isolated local recurrence [15]. Diagnosing local recurrence can be challenging due to radiation-induced changes in the prostate, compromising MRI findings, and histopathological evaluation [16,17].
Nonetheless, when local recurrence is detected, patients may benefit from local salvage therapies, including salvage RT, cryoablation, high-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU), and RP [12]. However, salvage therapies are underutilized due to the limited high-quality data, unclear survival benefits, and treatment-related adverse effects [18,19,20]. These therapies might also be under-studied or simply not reported owing to the adverse consequences and lack of consensus on treatment algorithm. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is, therefore, the most commonly utilized therapy in patients with radiation recurrent PCa [13], and the decision to pursue additional salvage interventions should balance the oncologic efficacy, adverse effects, the expertise as well as patient wishes and life expectancy [12].
Contemporary evidence on functional outcomes after local salvage therapies in patients with radiation recurrent PCa is unclear. We aimed to explore the functional outcomes and quality of life after local salvage therapies in patients with radiation recurrent PCa, and to create an evidence catalogue serving as a framework for research and shared decision making.
2. Materials and Methods
Evidence Acquisition
This review followed the Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol [21]. We conducted a systematic literature search using the PubMed-Medline database in July 2020, including articles published in the English language from January 2005 to June 2020. The search strategy included the following keywords in isolation or combination: “radio recurrent prostate cancer”, “radiation relapse in prostate cancer”, “radiation failure in prostate cancer”, “local salvage therapy”, “local therapy”, “salvage therapy [MeSH]”, “salvage cryoablation”, “salvage cryotherapy”, “salvage cryosurgery”, “salvage high-intensity focal ultrasound”, “salvage re-irradiation”, “salvage brachytherapy”, “salvage surgery”, “salvage prostatectomy” AND “functional outcomes”, “morbidity [MeSH]”, “adverse effects”, “patient-reported outcomes”, “clinical outcomes” and “quality of life [MeSH]”. The search was carried out by two authors independently, and any dispute was resolved by referring to a third author who acted as an arbiter.
The Population (P), Intervention (I), Comparator (C), Outcomes (O), and Study design (S) (PICOS) approach was used to specify the eligibility criteria. We considered a study eligible if it reported on PCa patients who were treated with primary radiation therapy (EBRT, BT, or both) and subsequently developed biochemical or clinical recurrence (P). Additionally, eligible studies should include data on patients treated by any local salvage therapy with or without ADT (I), and data on the treatment-related functional outcomes such as urinary function, sexual function, or quality of life (O) in prospective or retrospective studies (S). A comparator group (C) in each study was not necessary as an inclusion criterion since the outcomes of interest can be retrieved from case series or cohort studies and these outcomes can be compared across different studies.
We excluded review articles, case reports, articles reporting on ≤39 patients, comments, editorials, and conference abstracts. After duplicate removal, careful inspection of the remaining articles’ titles and abstracts was undertaken to rule out non-relevant articles. Studies involving multiple-modality primary therapies (except ADT) without separate analyses for radiation therapy as primary treatment were excluded. We also excluded studies reporting on oncological but not functional outcomes. An additional search in the references of all included studies was performed to screen for any articles that might have been missed in the primary search. All included articles were obtained as full-text articles for vigilant evaluation.
Reported urinary incontinence (UI) rates were classified as mild or severe. Mild UI was defined as any UI up to but not exceeding two pads per day, grade 1 (UI with coughing or sneezing) and 2 (UI with running or picking an object from the floor) using Ingelman-Sundberg UI [22], grade 1 (occasional UI, no pads needed) using CTCAE v4.0/v4.3 [23], and grade 1 (occasional, no pads needed) and 2 (pads needed, not interfering with ADL) using CTCAE v3.0 [24]. Severe UI was defined as any UI exceeding two pads per day, UI requiring instrumentation or surgery, grade 3 (UI with walking) using Ingelman-Sundberg UI [22], grade 2 (spontaneous UI, no intervention needed) and 3 (spontaneous, intervention needed) using CTCAE v4.0/v4.3 [23], and grade 3 (UI interfering with ADL) and 4 (surgery is needed) using CTCAE v3.0 [24].
Risk of bias assessment was performed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for observational and cross-sectional studies [25]. This tool comprises 14 questions on each included study, addressing the quality of the study, the included cohort, ascertainment of exposure and outcomes of interest and follow-up data. A median follow-up period of 24 months post salvage therapy was defined as “adequate” for each included study. A point of “1” was given if the study fulfilled the information needed in the question. If not, a “0” point was given. If the question does not apply to the study or information not necessarily provided, a “N/A” score was given. As a total score, the summation of all the “1” scores was undertaken for each study.
3. Evidence Synthesis
3.1. Study Selection
The primary search identified a total of 3209 articles while searching through additional sources yielded another 113 articles. After duplicates were removed, 683 articles remained, which were evaluated by reading the title and abstract of each. A subsequent full-text evaluation resulted in 35 articles to be included in evidence synthesis. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow chart and study selection process.
3.2. Study Characteristics
A total of 35 studies published between 2005 and 2020 met our inclusion criteria: 14 prospective [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39] and 21 retrospective studies. Three studies evaluated surgery as salvage therapy [26,27,40], while one study [41] included surgery and HIFU as salvage modalities and provided separate analyses for each. A total of 246 patients underwent surgery as a salvage treatment modality. On the other hand, 31 studies evaluated other salvage interventions, with a total of 5018 patients. Primary treatment included a variation of EBRT alone, BT alone, a combination of both or proton beam therapy. EBRT was the sole primary modality in 13 studies [27,28,30,31,32,34,36,39,42,43,44,45,46], while BT was the only primary modality in one report [35]. In three studies, the primary treatment modality was not specified [37,47,48]. In the remaining 18 studies, more than one primary modality was used, and 15 studies of which reported the percentage of each modality. Of those 15, only nine studies reported that more than 70% of patients received primary EBRT [26,29,33,38,40,41,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. Across all studies, ADT was initiated as adjuvant therapy in four studies [28,42,54,56], neoadjuvant therapy in seven studies [30,33,36,37,41,44,50], and both adjuvant and neoadjuvant in two studies [29,40]. Nineteen studies reported on ADT with no further details [26,31,32,34,35,39,43,45,46,48,49,51,52,53,55,57,58,59], and three studies did not report on the use of ADT [27,38,47]. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies. The following functional outcomes after salvage intervention were extracted: UI, erectile dysfunction (ED), median/mean of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5).
3.3. Urinary Incontinence
UI as a functional outcome of post-surgical salvage therapy was measured using the number of daily pads required following surgery. The reported UI rates at 12 months post-surgery ranged from 48% to 85% [26,27,40,41]. The rate of severe UI was more than 23% in all studies reporting on salvage surgery, with Mohler et al. and Seabra et al. reporting rates of 85% and 72%, respectively [26,27].
In studies reporting on non-surgical salvage interventions, continence was measured using scores such as the Ingelman-Sundberg score and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) urinary continence domain in addition to the number of pads. In the 13 studies that evaluated salvage HIFU, the reported UI rates ranged from 7.5% to 60.7% [31,32,33,34,35,36,41,42,44,45,46,56,57]. The rate of severe UI among these studies was less than 18% in eight studies, while Hostiou et al. and Jones et al. reported severe UI rates of 42% and 29%, respectively [31,35]. Three studies did not provide detailed information [32,44,57].
In patients who underwent cryotherapy after RT, the reported UI rates were between 3.2% and 52%, but two studies reported an UI rate of 0%: de Castro Abreu et al. in the focal cryotherapy group and Clarke et al. [28,37,38,47,49,50,51,52,58,59]. In addition, the reported rates of severe UI were less than 7%. Table 2 shows data on continence rates among included studies.
Patients who underwent salvage BThad UI rates ranging from 2.4% to 11% in four out of five studies (five out of six groups), while Henríquez López et al. reported an UI rate of 26.7% in the high dose rate BT group [29,30,43,54,55]. Three studies reported severe UI rates of 8%, 4.6%, and 2.4%, respectively [29,30,43].
3.4. Erectile Dysfunction
In patients who underwent salvage RP as their primary salvage modality, Mohler et al. and Seabra et al. reported ED rates of 78% and 74% at 6 months and 18 months, respectively [26,27]. In patients who underwent HIFU as the primary salvage modality, Hostiou et al., Jones et al. and Berge et al. reported ED rates of 76%, 53% and 94.6% during a median follow up of 12 months, 12 months, and 9 months, respectively [31,35,36]. Regarding studies assessing patients who underwent salvageBT, Van Son et al. demonstrated that 22% and 40% of their cohort experienced Grade II and III ED, respectively [29]. Studies on patients who underwent cryotherapy reported ED rates between 52% and 100% [28,37,39,47,48,50,51,59]. Furthermore, Robinson et al. and Donnelly et al. reported 3.5% and 4.3% unassisted intercourse rates in their cohort, respectively [28,39].
Studies that assessed non-surgical salvage modalities have also reported International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores using the 5-item [29,33,44,57,58] and 15-item [32,35] questionnaires. Kanthabalan et al. demonstrated a decrease in the median IIEF from 15 to 13 in patients who received HIFU [57]. While other three studies report a decrease in mean (median) IIEF scores from 8.6 [6] to 6.2 [3], from 15.3 [9] to 8.3 [6] and from 13.2 [17] to 8.2 [20] in 43, 13 and 50 patients, respectively [32,35,44]. Siddiqui et al. reported a mean IIEF score of 8.6 preoperatively, and of 3.4, 5.1 and 5.4 at 1.5 months, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively, in their salvage HIFU group. Baco et al. reported a mean IIEF score of 11.2 preoperatively, and of 7.0 postoperatively [33,56].
3.5. Urinary Obstruction
The International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) was used as a tool to assess the lower urinary tract symptoms in patients who underwent several salvage interventions. In patients who underwent salvage HIFU, Hostiou et al. and Ahmed et al. reported an increase in mean (median) IPSS from 5.6 [4] to 8.1 (7.4) and from 8.3 [7] to 11.6 (9.5) in 50 and 46 patients, respectively [35,44]. Baco et al. reported an increase in mean IPSS from 7.1 to 8.6 in 47 patients [33].
In 50 patients who underwent BT, Van Son et al. reported a median IPSS of 8.0, 11.5 and 8.0 preoperatively, at 1-month postoperatively and 36 months postoperatively, respectively [29]. Kollmeier et al. reported a median preoperative IPSS of 7.0 and a median IPSS peak of 19.0 at 4 months follow-up [55]. Additionally, Yamada et al. reported a rise in median IPSS from 6.0 to 12.0 at 36 months in 42 patients [30].
Regarding salvage cryotherapy, Bomers et al. reported a mean preoperative IPSS of 9.0 and 10.2 at 12 months [58]. Lastly, Ismail et al. reported a median IPSS of 7.0 preoperatively, and 9.0 at 12 months follow-up.
3.6. Additional Outcomes
Other measured outcomes included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core Module (EORTC-QLC), the Research and Development short form 36 (RAND-SF 36), the International Continence Society questionnaire A and B (ICS (A), ICS (B)) and the University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI). Hostiou et al. reported an increase in mean (median) EORTC-QLC score from 33.6 [32] to 36.2 [34], while Baco et al. reported an increase in mean score from 35.7 to 36.8 [33,35]. Ahmed et al. reported a decrease in mean (median) RAND-SF 36 score from 102.7 (103) to 100.4 (100) at 6 months post-HIFU [44]. Additionally, Baco et al. reported an increase in mean ICS (A) and ICS (B) scores from 0.7 and 0.6 to 2.3 and 1.6, respectively [33]. Furthermore, Robinson et al. reported a decrease in mean UCLA-PCI scores of both urinary function and sexual function from 92 and 30 to 58 and 8 at 24 months post-cryotherapy, respectively, in 40 patients [39]. On the other hand, Berge et al. demonstrated deteriorating sexual function scores from 32.1 to 17.2 during follow-up of 17.5 months, as reported by the UCLA-PCI Short Form [46].
4. Risk of Bias Assessment
Other than Berge et al. [46], none of the included studies used a comparator group. Thus, the question on blinding the outcome assessors did not apply to the included studies and is thus given a “N/A” score (Question 12). The mean (median) bias scores of the studies were 8.6 [9], respectively. Most included studies showed an “intermediate” risk of bias, as 76% of the studies had a score 8–10 (Table 4).
5. Discussion
The treatment of radiation recurrent PCa represents a challenge given the lack of consensus on patients’ selection, heterogenous efficacy of local salvage modalities, and their variable toxicity profiles. It is often the last opportunity for local disease control and prevention of local and distant progression with its sequalae. The current review reports a relatively high prevalence of adverse functional outcomes following local salvage treatment for radiation recurrent PCa. It is worth noting that the pre-salvage rates of urinary and sexual dysfunction were generally high, probably owing to the effect of primary treatment. It is difficult to accurately determine the effect of salvage modalities on functional outcomes due to the significant heterogeneity among included studies, as well as the lack of standardized reporting methods and tools. Compared to primary RP, salvage RP is associated with a higher risk of complications such as ED, anastomotic stricture, urinary retention, urinary fistula, abscess, and rectal injury [61]. We observed high UI rates post salvage surgery, ranging from 48% to 85%, with severe UI rates exceeding those of mild UI. In addition, the rates of ED are high post salvage surgery. With longer follow-up, however, UI and ED rates declined. Moreover, the series were mostly older with significant changes in surgical technique and post-operative follow-up. Nonetheless, the relatively high preoperative rates preclude an accurate estimation of the effect of surgery, and limited follow-up of the studies hamper any long-term conclusions.
We found that ED rates are high, with at least half of men undergoing a local salvage treatment reporting ED. Interestingly, there was a high rate of ED before salvage therapy, with as much as 70% reporting ED. In a previous systematic review, Chade et al. found that 50–91% of patients had ED prior to salvage RP and 80–100% reported ED following salvage surgery [19]. In addition, urinary continence ranged between 21% and 90% after salvage surgery on longer follow up [19]. The variability of the findings may be mainly due to patient selection and surgical technique; in more recent series, these complications appear to be much less common, due to the progress in surgical technique and patient selection [62].
In patients who underwent salvage cryotherapy, we found that most of the included studies reported modest UI rates, mostly being mild. Two studies reported UI rates of 0% [38,51]. In a retrospective study of 143 patients who underwent cryotherapy after RT failure, Cespedes et al. reported high long-term UI rates of 28% at least 12 months after salvage cryotherapy, with 8–40% of patients reporting persistent rectal pain and 4% needing to undergo surgical procedures for the management of treatment-associated complications [63]. Notably, the introduction of cryotherapy has significantly decreased complications such as UI, fistulae, obstruction and ED [64]. For instance, in a recent study comprising only 14 patients, Boissier et al. reported de novo UI and ED in one patient, respectively [64]. Ideally, salvage cryotherapy has been suggested to be considered only for patients with comorbidities, a life expectancy of at least 10 years, an initial clinical stage of T1/T2, initial ISUP grade ≤ 2/3, a pre-salvage PSA-DT ≥ 16 months and a pre-salvage PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL [65].
High dose rate and low dose rateBT have been shown to be effective treatment options for histologically proven local PCa recurrence after RT with moderate Grade 3–4 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity profiles ranging from 2.7–20% and 3–47%, respectively [66]. Overall, most salvage BT studies reported a 2.4% to 26.7% UI rate exceeding 1 pad daily. A meta-regression analysis comparing functional outcomes of surgical and non-surgical salvage modalities in radiation recurrent PCa found that both salvage BT and cryotherapy had significantly better results in terms of continence than salvage RP [67]. A subgroup analysis of patients who underwent non-surgical salvage modalities revealed that salvage BT and cryotherapy were comparable in UI rates. At the same time both were significantly better than salvage HIFU [67].
In terms of erectile function, the included studies illustrate the high rates of ED in this patient population, as shown by the decrease in IIEF scores compared to before therapy. However, a high-level of heterogeneity was noticeable between surgical and non-surgical salvage modalities indicating substantial differences between studies.
Salvage HIFU has recently emerged as an alternative thermal ablation option for radiation recurrent PCa [65]. In this review, most salvage HIFU studies reported continence rates above 50%. A meta-analysis showed that salvage HIFU did not demonstrate significantly better continence rates than salvage RP [67]. In general, the median follow-up did not exceed 24 months, a relatively adequate follow up period to report changes in outcomes [36,45]. Currently, there is a lack of high-quality data precluding robust recommendations regarding the indications for salvage HIFU.
We found considerable variability of functional outcomes after salvage therapy of radiation recurrent PCa. Proper patient selection and thorough consideration of the oncologic outcomes are critical factors in patient counselling and decision-making to achieve durable cancer control with the best possible quality of life.
In this review, we believe that the limitations of our work mainly stem from the heterogeneity of included studies, which even precluded a proper quantitative analysis. This review was based on case series and small cohort studies that lack a comparator group. The lack of extended follow-up duration was an issue only for some studies with outcomes as ED, whose rates might significantly change with time. Furthermore, this review focused on pertinent urologic functional outcomes, without analyzing other therapy-related adverse consequences such as GI toxicity. The significant heterogeneity of reporting outcomes and lack of pre-salvage rates of key outcomes also added to the problem. Therefore, it is difficult to draw solid conclusions with a high level of evidence. Indeed, prospective and comparative studies between different salvage modalities with long follow-up duration are needed to generate reliable evidence and validate long-term functional outcomes.
6. Conclusions
Local salvage therapies after radiation recurrent PCa are associated with impaired urinary and sexual functions. Accurate estimation of the impact of these therapies is precluded by the preoperative morbidity associated with primaryRT. Despite these adverse consequences, the oncologic advantage may justify the use of local salvage therapy post radiation failure in select informed patients who benefit from a balanced shared decision-making process.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: M.A., B.F. and S.F.S.; writing—Original draft preparation: M.A., A.S., M.R.A., and R.S.-I.; writing—Review and editing: all authors; supervision: S.F.S. and L.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Pishgar, F.; Ebrahimi, H.; Moghaddam, S.S.; Fitzmaurice, C.; Amini, E. Global, Regional and National Burden of Prostate Cancer, 1990 to 2015: Results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. J. Urol. 2018, 199, 1224–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mariotto, A.B.; Yabroff, K.R.; Shao, Y.; Feuer, E.J.; Brown, M.L. Projections of the Cost of Cancer Care in the United States: 2010 –2020. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2011, 103, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jang, J.W.; Drumm, M.R.; Efstathiou, J.A.; Paly, J.J.; Niemierko, A.; Ancukiewicz, M.; Talcott, J.A.; Clark, J.A.; Zietman, A.L. Long-term quality of life after definitive treatment for prostate cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in the second posttreatment decade. Cancer Med. 2017, 6, 1827–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burt, L.M.; Shrieve, D.C.; Tward, J.D. Factors influencing prostate cancer patterns of care: An analysis of treatment variation using the SEER database. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 3, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Walz, J.; Gallina, A.; Perrotte, P.; Jeldres, C.; Trinh, Q.D.; Hutterer, G.C.; Traumann, M.; Ramirez, A.; Shariat, S.F.; McCormack, M.; et al. Clinicians are poor raters of life-expectancy before radical prostatectomy or definitive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007, 100, 1254–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawrentschuk, N.; Trottier, G.; Kuk, C.; Zlotta, A.R. Role of surgery in high-risk localized prostate cancer. Curr. Oncol. 2010, 17, 387–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shariat, S.F.; Kattan, M.W.; Vickers, A.J.; Karakiewicz, P.I.; Scardino, P.T. Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools. Futur. Oncol. 2009, 5, 1555–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gray, P.J.; Zietman, A.L. Dose-Escalated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Is the Sky the Limit? JAMA Oncol. 2015, 1, 883–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dearnaley, D.P.; Jovic, G.; Syndikus, I.; Khoo, V.; Cowan, R.A.; Graham, J.D.; Aird, E.G.; Bottomley, D.; Huddart, R.A.; Jose, C.C.; et al. Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 464–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zietman, A.L.; Bae, K.; Slater, J.D.; Shipley, W.U.; Efstathiou, J.A.; Coen, J.J.; Bush, D.A.; Lunt, M.; Spiegel, D.Y.; Skowronski, R.; et al. Randomized Trial Comparing Conventional-Dose With High-Dose Conformal Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: Long-Term Results From Proton Radiation Oncology Group/American College of Radiology 95-09. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 28, 1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Steele, E.M.; Holmes, J.A. A review of salvage treatment options for disease progression after radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol. Semin. Orig. Investig. 2019, 37, 582–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zdrojowy, R.; Dembowski, J.; Małkiewicz, B.; Tupikowski, K.; Krajewski, W. Salvage local therapy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer where are we? Cent. Eur. J. Urol. 2016, 69, 264–270. [Google Scholar]
- Gandaglia, G.; Abdollah, F.; Schiffmann, J.; Trudeau, V.; Shariat, S.F.; Kim, S.P.; Perrotte, P.; Montorsi, F.; Briganti, A.; Trinh, Q.; et al. Distribution of metastatic sites in patients with prostate cancer: A population-based analysis. Prostate 2014, 74, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abufaraj, M.; Grubmüller, B.; Zeitlinger, M.; Kramer, G.; Seitz, C.; Haitel, A.; Baltzer, P.; Hacker, M.; Wadsak, W.; Pfaff, S.; et al. Prospective evaluation of the performance of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT(MRI) for lymph node staging in patients undergoing superextended salvage lymph node dissection after radical prostatectomy. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2019, 46, 2169–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stone, N.N.; Unger, P.; Crawford, E.D.; Stock, R.G. Diagnosis and management of local recurrence after low-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2015, 14, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leventis, A.K.; Shariat, S.F.; Slawin, K.M. Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Correlation of US features with prostatic fossa biopsy findings. Radiology 2001, 219, 432–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Agarwal, P.K.; Sadetsky, N.; Konety, B.R.; Resnick, M.I.; Carroll, P.R. Treatment failure after primary and salvage therapy for prostate cancer: Likelihood, patterns of care, and outcomes. Cancer 2008, 112, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chade, D.C.; Eastham, J.; Graefen, M.; Hu, J.C.; Karnes, R.J.; Klotz, L.; Montorsi, F.; Poppel, H.V.; Scardino, P.T.; Shariat, S.F. Cancer Control and Functional Outcomes of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Radiation-recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur. Urol. 2012, 61, 961–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chade, D.C.; Shariat, S.F.; Cronin, A.M.; Savage, C.J.; Karnes, R.J.; Blute, M.L.; Briganti, A.; Montorsi, F.; Poel, H.G.; Poppel, H.V.; et al. Salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: A multi-institutional collaboration. Eur. Urol. 2011, 60, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D.; et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1–e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ingelman-Sundberg, A.; Ulmsten, U. Surgical Treatment of Female Urinary Stress Incontinence. In Contributions to Gynecology and Obstetrics; Karger: Basel, Switzerland, 1983; pp. 51–69. Available online: https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/407974 (accessed on 14 November 2020).
- National Institutes of Health (NIH). National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.02 (CTCAE). US Department of Health and Human Services. 2009. Available online: https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03/Archive/CTCAE_4.02_2009-09-15_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- National Institutes of Health (NIH). National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v3.0. US Department of Health and Human Services Version. 2006. Available online: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcaev3.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- National Institutes of Health. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. 2014. Available online: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed on 14 November 2020).
- Mohler, J.L.; Halabi, S.; Ryan, S.T.; Al-Daghmin, A.; Sokoloff, M.H.; Steinberg, G.D.; Sanford, B.L.; Eastham, J.A.; Walther, P.J.; Morris, M.J.; et al. Management of recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: Long-term results from CALGB 9687 (Alliance), a prospective multi-institutional salvage prostatectomy series. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019, 22, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seabra, D.; Faria, E.; Dauster, B.; Rodrigues, G.; Fava, G. Critical analysis of salvage radical prostatectomy in the management of radioresistant prostate cancer. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2009, 35, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Donnelly, B.J.; Saliken, J.C.; Ernst, D.S.; Weber, B.; Robinson, J.W.; Brasher, P.M.A.; Rose, M.; Rewcastle, J. Role of transrectal ultrasound guided salvage cryosurgery for recurrent prostate carcinoma after radiotherapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2005, 8, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Son, M.J.; Peters, M.; Moerland, M.A.; Lagendijk, J.J.W.; Eppinga, W.S.C.; Shah, T.T.; Ahmed, H.U.; Zyp, J.R. MRI-Guided Ultrafocal Salvage High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy for Localized Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: Updated Results of 50 Patients. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2020, 107, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yamada, Y.; Kollmeier, M.A.; Pei, X.; Kan, C.C.; Cohen, G.N.; Donat, S.M.; Cox, B.W.; Zelefsky, M.J. A Phase II study of salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive external beam radiotherapy. Brachytherapy 2014, 13, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jones, T.A.; Chin, J.; Mcleod, D.; Barkin, J.; Pantuck, A.; Marks, L.S. High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: A North American Clinical Trial. J. Urol. 2018, 199, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, T.T.; Peters, M.; Kanthabalan, A.; McCartan, N.; Fatola, Y.; Van Der, V.; Van Zyp, J.; Vulpen, M.V.; Freeman, A.; Moore, C.M.; et al. PSA nadir as a predictive factor for biochemical disease-free survival and overall survival following whole-gland salvage HIFU following radiotherapy failure. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016, 19, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baco, E.; Gelet, A.; Crouzet, S.; Rud, E.; Rouvière, O.; Tonoli-Catez, H.; Berge, V.; Chapelon, J.; Eggesbø, H.B. Hemi salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in unilateral radiorecurrent prostate cancer: A prospective two-centre study. BJU Int. 2014, 114, 532–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crouzet, S.; Murat, F.J.; Pommier, P.; Poissonnier, L.; Pasticier, G.; Rouviere, O.; Chapelon, J.; Rabilloud, M.; Belot, A.; Mège-Lechevallier, F.; et al. Locally recurrent prostate cancer after initial radiation therapy: Early salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound improves oncologic outcomes. Radiother. Oncol. 2012, 105, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hostiou, T.; Gelet, A.; Chapelon, J.Y.; Rouvière, O.; Mège-Lechevalier, F.; Lafon, C.; Tonoli-Catez, H.; Badet, L.; Crouzet, S. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound for locally recurrent prostate cancer after low-dose-rate brachytherapy: Oncological and functional outcomes. BJU Int. 2019, 124, 746–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berge, V.; Baco, E.; Karlsen, S.J. A prospective study of salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound for locally radiorecurrent prostate cancer: Early results. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 2010, 44, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ismail, M.; Ahmed, S.; Kastner, C.; Davies, J. Salvage cryotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiation failure: A prospective case series of the first 100 patients. BJU Int. 2007, 100, 760–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clarke, H.S.; Eskridge, M.R.; El-Zawahry, A.M.; Keane, T.E. Salvage cryosurgical ablation of the prostate for local recurrence after radiation therapy: Improved outcomes utilizing a capromab pendetide scan and biopsy algorithm. Can. J. Urol. 2007, 14, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Robinson, J.W.; Donnelly, B.J.; Coupland, K.; Siever, J.E.; Saliken, J.C.; Scott, C.; Brasher, P.M.A.; Ernst, D.S. Quality of life 2 years after salvage cryosurgery for the treatment of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Urol. Oncol. Semin. Orig. Investig. 2006, 24, 472–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ward, J.F.; Sebo, T.J.; Blute, M.L.; Zincke, H. Salvage surgery for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: Contemporary outcomes. J. Urol. 2005, 173, 1156–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devos, B.; Al Hajj Obeid, W.; Andrianne, C.; Diamand, R.; Peltier, A.; Everaerts, W.; Poppel, H.V.; Velthoven, R.V.; Joniau, S. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound versus salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: A comparative study of oncological, functional, and toxicity outcomes. World J. Urol. 2019, 37, 1507–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murat, F.J.; Poissonnier, L.; Rabilloud, M.; Belot, A.; Bouvier, R.; Rouviere, O.; Chapelon, J.; Gelet, A. Mid-term Results Demonstrate Salvage High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) as an Effective and Acceptably Morbid Salvage Treatment Option for Locally Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer. Eur. Urol. 2009, 55, 640–649. [Google Scholar]
- Crook, J.M.; Zhang, P.; Pisansky, T.M.; Trabulsi, E.J.; Amin, M.B.; Bice, W.; Morton, G.; Pervez, N.; Vigneault, E.; Catton, C.; et al. A Prospective Phase 2 Trial of Transperineal Ultrasound-Guided Brachytherapy for Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer After External Beam Radiation Therapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG-0526). Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 103, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, H.U.; Cathcart, P.; Chalasani, V.; Williams, A.; McCartan, N.; Freeman, A.; Kirkham, A.; Allen, C.; Chin, J.; Emberton, M. Whole-gland salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for localized prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 2012, 118, 3071–3078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crouzet, S.; Blana, A.; Murat, F.J.; Pasticier, G.; Brown, S.C.W.; Conti, G.N.; Ganzer, R.; Chapet, O.; Gelet, A.; Chaussy, C.G.; et al. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for locally recurrent prostate cancer after failed radiation therapy: Multi-institutional analysis of 418 patients. BJU Int. 2017, 119, 896–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berge, V.; Baco, E.; Dahl, A.A.; Karlsen, S.J. Health-related quality of life after salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment for locally radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Int. J. Urol. 2011, 18, 646–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmad, I.; Kalna, G.; Ismail, M.; Birrell, F.; Asterling, S.; McCartney, E.; Greene, D.; Davies, J.; Leung, H.Y. Prostate Gland Lengths and Iceball Dimensions Predict Micturition Functional Outcome Following Salvage Prostate Cryotherapy in Men with Radiation Recurrent Prostate Cancer. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e069243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Li, R.; Ruckle, H.C.; Schlaifer, A.E.; El-Shafei, A.; Yu, C.; Jones, J.S. The Effect of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Before Salvage Whole-gland Cryoablation After Primary Radiation Failure in Prostate Cancer Treatment. Urology 2015, 85, 1137–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siddiqui, K.M.; Billia, M.; Al-Zahrani, A.; Williams, A.; Goodman, C.; Arifin, A.; Violette, P.; Bauman, G.; Chin, J.L. Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Salvage Cryoablation for Radio-Recurrent Prostate Cancer. J. Urol. 2016, 196, 1105–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.H.; Elshafei, A.; Agarwal, G.; Ruckle, H.; Pow-Sang, J.; Jones, J.S. Salvage focal prostate cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: Initial results from the cryo on-line data registry. Prostate 2015, 75, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Castro Abreu, A.L.; Bahn, D.; Leslie, S.; Shoji, S.; Silverman, P.; Desai, M.M.; Gill, I.; Ukimura, O. Salvage focal and salvage total cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiation therapy. BJU Int. 2013, 112, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pisters, L.L.; Rewcastle, J.C.; Donnelly, B.J.; Lugnani, F.M.; Katz, A.E.; Jones, J.S. Salvage Prostate Cryoablation: Initial Results From the Cryo On-Line Data Registry. J. Urol. 2008, 180, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, C.K.; Moussa, M.; Downey, D.B.; Chin, J.L. Salvage Cryoablation of the Prostate: Followup and Analysis of Predictive Factors for Outcome. J. Urol. 2007, 178, 1253–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henríquez López, I.; González-San Segundo, C.; Vegas, J.O.; Gutierrez, C.; Hervas, A.; Cabeza Rodriguez, M.Á.; Albarrán, J.V.; Villalba, S.R.; Gonzalez, A.; Pardo, G.S.; et al. Salvage brachytherapy for locally-recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy: A comparison of efficacy and toxicity outcomes with high-dose rate and low-dose rate brachytherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 2019, 141, 156–163. [Google Scholar]
- Kollmeier, M.A.; McBride, S.; Taggar, A.; Anderson, E.; Lin, M.; Pei, X.; Weiji, S.; Voros, L.; Cohen, G.; Yamada, Y.; et al. Salvage brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiation therapy: A comparison of low-dose-rate and high-dose-rate brachytherapy and the importance of prostate-specific antigen doubling time. Brachytherapy 2017, 16, 1091–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siddiqui, K.M.; Billia, M.; Williams, A.; Alzahrani, A.; Chin, J.L. Comparative morbidity of ablative energy-based salvage treatments for radio-recurrent prostate cancer. J. Can. Urol. Assoc. 2015, 9, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kanthabalan, A.; Peters, M.; Van Vulpen, M.; McCartan, N.; Hindley, R.G.; Emara, A.; Moore, C.M.; Arya, M.; Emberton, M.; Ahmed, H.U. Focal salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound in radiorecurrent prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017, 120, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bomers, J.G.R.; Overduin, C.G.; Jenniskens, S.F.M.; Cornel, E.B.; van Lin, E.N.J.T.; Sedelaar, J.P.M.; Fütterer, J.J. Focal Salvage MR Imaging–Guided Cryoablation for Localized Prostate Cancer Recurrence after Radiotherapy: 12-Month Follow-up. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2020, 31, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, W.P.; ElShafei, A.; Aminsharifi, A.; Khalifa, A.O.; Polascik, T.J. Salvage Focal Cryotherapy Offers Similar Short-term Oncologic Control and Improved Urinary Function Compared With Salvage Whole Gland Cryotherapy for Radiation-resistant or Recurrent Prostate Cancer. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2020, 18, e260–e265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safavy, S.; Jabaji, R.B.; Lu, S.M.; Slezak, J.M.; Cosmatos, H.A.; Williams, S.G.; Finley, D.S. Salvage Cryoablation for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: Initial Experience at a Regional Health Care System. Perm. J. 2019, 23, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Gotto, G.T.; Yunis, L.H.; Vora, K.; Eastham, J.A.; Scardino, P.T.; Rabbani, F. Impact of Prior Prostate Radiation on Complications After Radical Prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2010, 184, 136–142. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20478594/ (accessed on 17 October 2020). [CrossRef]
- Stephenson, A.J.; Scardino, P.T.; Bianco, F.J.; DiBlasio, C.J.; Fearn, P.A.; Eastham, J.A. Morbidity and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy. J. Urol. 2004, 172, 2239–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cespedes, R.D.; Pisters, L.L.; Von Eschenbach, A.C.; McGuire, E.J. Long-term followup of incontinence and obstruction after salvage cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: Results in 143 patients. J. Urol. 1997, 157, 237–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boissier, R.; Sanguedolce, F.; Territo, A.; Gaya, J.; Huguet, J.; Rodriguez-Faba, O.; Regis, F.; Gallioli, A.; Vedovo, F.; Martinez, C.; et al. Partial salvage cryoablation of the prostate for local recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy: Step-by-step technique and outcomes. Urol. Video J. 2020, 7, 100040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mottet, P.N.; Cornford, R.C.N.; van den Bergh, E.; Briers, M.; De Santis, S.; Fanti, S.; Gillessen, J.; Grummet, A.M.; Henry, T.B.; Lam, M.D.; et al. EAU Guidelines: Prostate Cancer | Uroweb. European Association of Urology. 2020. Available online: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#4 (accessed on 17 October 2020).
- Gomez-veiga, F.; Mari, A.; Alvarez, L.; Rodriguez, I.; Fernandez, C.; Pertega, S.; Pertega, S.; Candal, A. Brachytherapy for the treatment of recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. BJUI Suppl. 2012, 109, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philippou, Y.; Parker, R.A.; Volanis, D.; Gnanapragasam, V.J.; Catto, J. Comparative Oncologic and Toxicity Outcomes of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy Versus Nonsurgical Therapies for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: A Meta–Regression Analysis. Eur. Urol. Focus 2016, 2, 158–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
The Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and meta-Analyses flowchart for article selection.
Figure 1.
The Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and meta-Analyses flowchart for article selection.
Table 1.
Characteristics of studies assessing the functional outcomes in patients who underwent salvage intervention after radiation recurrent prostate cancer.
Table 1.
Characteristics of studies assessing the functional outcomes in patients who underwent salvage intervention after radiation recurrent prostate cancer.
| Name | Study Type | Location | Sample Size | Primary Treatment | Androgen Deprivation Therapy | Salvage Modality | Reported Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical | |||||||
| Mohler 2019 [26] | Prospective | USA | 41 | 58.5%: EBRT 26.8%: BT 14.6%: Combined | 22%: after recurrence | RP | Continence Potency |
| Devos 2019 (a) [41] | Retrospective | Belgium | 25 | 68%: EBRT 32%: BT | 36%: N-AD | RP | Continence |
| Seabra 2009 [27] | Prospective | Brazil | 42 | EBRT | - | RP | Continence Potency |
| Ward 2005 [40] | Retrospective | USA | 138 (49: 1967–1990) (89: 1990–2001) | 92%: EBRT 7.2%: BT 0.8%: Combined | 38%: N-AD 61%: AD | RP | Continence |
| HIFU | |||||||
| Hostiou 2019 [35] | Prospective maintenance, Retrospective analysis | France | 50 | BT | 16%: at biochemical failure | HIFU | Continence Potency IPSS IIEF QOL (EORTC QLC-28) |
| Devos 2019 (b) [41] | Retrospective | Belgium | 27 | EBRT | 31%: N-AD | HIFU | |
| Crouzet 2017 [45] | Retrospective | France | 418 | EBRT | none within 3 months of HIFU | HIFU | Continence |
| Jones 2018 [31] | Prospective trial | USA | 100 | EBRT | none within 3 months of HIFU | HIFU | Continence Potency |
| Kanthabalan 2017 [57] | Retrospective | UK | 150 | 96.7%: EBRT 3.3%: EBRT + BT | 45.3%: pre-salvage | HIFU | Continence IIEF |
| Shah 2016 [32] | Prospective | UK | 50 | EBRT | 52%: after biochemical failure | HIFU | Continence IIEF |
| Siddiqui 2015 (a) [56] | Retrospective | UK | 65 | 93.8%: EBRT 6.2%: BT | 21%: AD | HIFU | Continence IIEF |
| Baco 2014 [33] | Prospective | France & Norway | 48 | 95.8%: EBRT 4.2%: BT | 22.9%: N-AD | HIFU | Continence IPSS IIEF ICS (A) ICS (B) EORTC QLC-30 |
| Crouzet 2012 [34] | Prospective | France | 290 | EBRT | 50%: prior to HIFU | HIFU | Continence |
| Berge 2011 [46] | Retrospective | Norway | 61 | EBRT | 19% | HIFU | UCLA-PCI |
| Ahmed 2011 [44] | Retrospective | Canada and UK | 84 | EBRT | 35.4%: N-AD | HIFU | Continence IPSS IIEF RAND-SF 36 |
| Berge 2010 [36] | Prospective | Norway | 46 | EBRT | 17.4%: N-AD | HIFU | Continence Potency |
| Murat 2009 [42] | Retrospective | France | 167 | EBRT | 56.8%: post primary therapy or AD | HIFU | Continence |
| Cryotherapy | |||||||
| Bomers 2020 [58] | Retrospective | Netherlands | 62 | 64.5%: EBRT 33.9%: BT 1.6%: Combined | prior use: 37.1% | MR imaging–guided CT | IPSS IIEF |
| Tan 2020 (a) [59] | Retrospective | COLD registry | 385 | 75%: EBRT 16%: BT 9%: Combined | 26.4% | Focal CT: 72 patients | Continence Potency |
| Tan 2020 (b) [59] | Retrospective | COLD registry | 385 | 75%: EBRT 16%: BT 9%: Combined | 31.3%: prior to salvage | Total CT: 313 patients | |
| Safavy 2019 [60] | Retrospective | USA | 75 | 77.3%: EBRT 21.3%: BT 1.3%: missing | 25.3%: were subjected to ADT | CT | Continence |
| Siddiqui 2016 [49] | Retrospective | Canada | 157 | EBRT or EBRT + BT or BT | 71%: prior to salvage | CT | Continence |
| Li 2015 [48] | Retrospective | COLD registry | 740 | Radiotherapy | 34.3%: prior to salvage | CT | Continence Potency |
| Siddiqui 2015 (b) [56] | Retrospective | UK | 65 | 97%: EBRT3%: BT | 13%: AD | CT 1995–1998 | |
| Siddiqui 2015 (c) [56] | Retrospective | UK | 65 | EBRT | 18%: AD | CT 2002–2004 | |
| Li 2014 [50] | Retrospective | COLD registry | 91 | 25: BT 44: EBRT 3: Combined | 35.2%: N-AD | CT | Continence Potency |
| Ahmad 2013 [47] | Retrospective | UK | 283 | Radiotherapy | - | CT | Continence Potency |
| De Castro Abreu 2013 (a) [51] | Retrospective | USA | 25 | 44%: EBRT 32%: Proton beam 20%: BT 4%: BT + EBRT | none during study period before recurrence | Focal CT, UL | Continence Potency |
| De Castro Abreu 2013 (b) [51] | Retrospective | USA | 25 | 44%: EBRT 20%: Proton beam 28%: BT 8%: BT + EBRT | none during study period before recurrence | Total CT, BL | |
| Pisters 2008 [52] | Retrospective | USA | 279 | 78.1%: EBRT 11.5%: BT 7.2%: Combined 3.2%: unknown | 50.9%: prior to salvage | CT | Continence |
| Ismail 2007 [37] | Prospective case series | UK | 100 | Radiotherapy | 46%: N-AD | CT | Continence PotencyIPSS |
| Ng 2007 [53] | Retrospective | USA | 187 | 97.9%: EBRT 1.6%: BT 0.5%: Combined | 32%: started ADT due to disease progression | CT | Continence |
| Clarke 2007 [38] | Prospective | USA | 47 | EBRT or BT or both | - | CT | Continence |
| Robinson 2006 [39] | Prospective PHASE II study | Canada | 46 | EBRT | 26.1%: pre cryosurgery 15.2% post crysurgery | CT | Potency UCLA-PCI |
| Donnelly 2005 [28] | Prospective | Canada | 46 | EBRT | 6.5%: AD | Ultrasound-guided CT | Continence Potency |
| Brachytherapy | |||||||
| van Son 2020 [29] | Prospective | Netherlands | 50 | 50%: EBRT 50%: BT | 8%: N-AD 14%: AD | BT | Continence Potency IPSS IIEF |
| Crook 2019 [43] | Retrospective | Canada | 92 | EBRT | 16%: at study entry | BT | Continence |
| Lopez 2019 (a) [54] | Retrospective | Spain | 73 | EBRT or BT | 29%: AD | HDR BT | Continence |
| Lopez 2019 (b) [54] | Retrospective | Spain | 44 | EBRT or BT | 18%: AD | LDR BT | |
| Kollmeier 2017 [55] | Retrospective | USA | 98 | 87.8%: EBRT 10.2%: BT 2%: Combined | 45%: at salvage | 37.8%: LDR BT 62.2%: HDR BT | Continence IPSS |
| Yamada 2014 [30] | Prospective PHASE II study | USA | 42 | EBRT | 43%: N-AD | BT | Continence IPSS IIEF |
P = prospective, R = retrospective, [n] = number of patients assessed in given outcome, EBRT = external beam radiation therapy, BT = brachytherapy, RP = radical prostatectomy, AD = adjuvant, N-AD = neoadjuvant, HRQOL = health related quality of life, HIFU = high intensity focused ultrasound, CT = cryotherapy, ADT = androgen deprivation therapy, COLD = Cryo On-Line Data Registry, HDR = high dose rate, LDR = low dose rate, 3D-CT = three dimensional computed tomography, IPSS = international prostate symptom score, IIEF = international index of erectile function, EORTC QLC = European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core Module, ICS (A) = International Continence Society questionnaire A, ICS (B) = International Continence Society questionnaire B, UCLA-PCI = University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, RAND-SF 36 = RAND short form 36.
Table 2.
Urinary function outcomes after various salvage interventions presented as mild versus severe urinary incontinence.
Table 2.
Urinary function outcomes after various salvage interventions presented as mild versus severe urinary incontinence.
| Author and Year of Publication | Functional Outcomes Sample | Incontinence Rate (General) | Mild UI ¥ | Severe UI £ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgery | ||||
| Mohler 2019 [26] | 40 (6 months) 34 (12 months) 32 (24 months) 24 (36 months) | - | - | 88% 85% 63% 42% |
| Devos 2019 (a) | 25 | 56% | 28% | 28% |
| Seabra 2009 [27] | 42 | 72% | - | 72% |
| Ward 2005 [40] | 130 | 48% | At least 20% ** | Less than 28% ** |
| HIFU | ||||
| Hostiou 2019 [35] | 50 | - | 14% | 42% |
| Devos 2019 (b) | 27 | 22% | 11% | 11% |
| Crouzet 2017 [45] | 388 | 49% | 33% | 16% |
| Jones 2018 [31] | 100 | 47% | 18% | 29% |
| Kanthabalan 2017 [57] | 48 | 22% * | - | - |
| Shah 2016 [32] | 26 | 31% * | - | - |
| Siddiqui 2015 (a) [56] | 65 | 7.50% | 3% | 4.5% |
| Baco 2014 [33] | 48 | 25.30% | 17% | 8.3% |
| Crouzet 2012 [34] | 290 | 46% | 37% | 16.8% |
| Berge 2011 [46] | 61 | - | 44% | 16% |
| Ahmed 2012 [44] | 84 | 38% | N/A § | N/A |
| Berge 2010 [36] | 35 | 60.7% | 43.4% | 17.3% |
| Murat 2009 [42] | 167 | 49.50% | 40% | 9.5% |
| Cryotherapy | ||||
| Bomers 2020 [58] | 44 | 3.2% | - | 3.2% |
| Tan 2020 (a) ₡ [59] | 72 | 9.30% | N/A | N/A |
| Tan 2020 (b) ₡ [59] | 313 | 15.10% | N/A | N/A |
| Safavy 2019 [60] | 75 | 25.30% * | - | - |
| Siddiqui 2016 [49] | 157 | 48% | 44% | 4% |
| Li 2015 [48] | 740 | No pre-SC ADT: 33.3% * With pre-SC ADT: 23.3% * | - | - |
| Siddiqui 2015 (b) [56] | 65 | 52% | 49% | 3% |
| Siddiqui 2015 (c) [56] | 65 | 37.50% | 31% | 6.5% |
| Li 2014 [50] | 91 | 5.50% * | - | - |
| Ahmad 2013 [47] | 283 | 12% * | - | - |
| De Castro Abreu 2013 (a) [51] | 25 | 0% * | - | - |
| De Castro Abreu 2013 (b) [51] | 25 | 13% * | - | - |
| Pisters 2008 [52] | 137 | 10.20% * | - | - |
| Ismail 2007 [37] | 100 | 13% | Less than 7% ** | At least 6% ** |
| Ng 2007 [53] | 187 | 40% + | 37% | 3% |
| Clarke 2007 [38] | 47 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Donnelly 2005 [28] | 46 | 6.50% | N/A | N/A |
| Brachytherapy | ||||
| Van Son 2020 [29] | 50 | 8% | - | 8% |
| Crook 2019 [43] | 87 | 4.6% | - | 4.6% |
| Henríquez López 2019 (a) [54] | 73 | 26.70% * | - | - |
| Henríquez López 2019 (b) [54] | 44 | 4.50% * | - | - |
| Kollmeier 2017 [55] | 98 | 11% * | - | - |
| Yamada 2014 [30] | 42 | 2.40% | - | 2.4% |
¥: mild UI was defined as any UI up to but not exceeding two pads per day, grade 1 (UI with coughing or sneezing) and 2 (UI with running or picking an object from the floor) Ingleman-Sundberg UI, grade 1 (occasional UI, no pads needed) CTCAE v4.0/v4.3, and grade 1 (occasional, no pads needed) and 2 (pads needed, not interfering with ADL) CTCAE v3.0. £: severe UI was defined as any UI exceeding two pads per day, UI requiring instrumentation or surgery, grade 3 (UI with walking) Ingleman-Sundberg UI, grade 2 (spontaneous UI, no intervention needed) and 3 (spontaneous, intervention needed) CTCAE v4.0/v4.3, and grade 3 (UI interfering with ADL) and 4 (surgery is needed) CTCAE v3.0 §: no further details on pads or grades provided. ₡: Tan (a) used focal CT, while Tan (b) used total CT *: ≥1 pad with no other specifications **: the numbers reported do not match those of our table (e.g., <3 pads and ≥3 pads); the lower limit underestimates UI and the upper limit overestimates UI, so “less than” and “at least” were added accordingly. +: “Mild to moderate” was put as (mild UI), “severe” was put as (severe UI), [n] = number of patients assessed for given outcome, UCLA-PCI = University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index.
Table 3.
Sexual function outcomes in patients who underwent various salvage interventions.
| Author and Year of Publication | Functional Outcomes Follow-Up Sample | Pre-op ED Rate | Post-op ED Rate | Follow-Up Time for EF (Months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical | ||||
| Mohler 2019 [26] | 40 at 3 months 40 at 6 months 24 at 36 months | 32% [38] | 90% at 3 months 78% at 6 months 25% at 36 months | - |
| Seabra 2009 [27] | 42 | - | 74% | - |
| HIFU | ||||
| Hostiou 2019 A [35] | 50 | 50% | 76% | 12 |
| Jones 2018 [31] | 100 | 53% | 88% | 12 |
| Kanthabalan 2017 B [57] | 48 | - | - | - |
| Shah 2016 A [32] | 26 | - | - | - |
| Siddiqui 2015 (a) [56] | 65 | - | - | - |
| Baco 2014 B [33] | 48 | - | - | - |
| Ahmed 2012 B [44] | 84 | - | - | - |
| Berge 2010 [36] | 37 | 78.8% [33] | 94.6% | - |
| Cryotherapy | ||||
| Bomers 2020 B [58] | 44 | - | - | - |
| Tan 2020 (a) ¥ [59] | 72 | - | 52.60% | 12 |
| Tan 2020 (b) ¥ [59] | 313 | - | 59.60% | 12 |
| Li 2015 [48] | 740 | - | No pre-SC ADT: 71.3% With pre-SC ADT: 84.5% | 12 |
| Li 2014 [50] | 91 | 70% | 85% | - |
| Ahmad 2013 [47] | 283 | - | 83% | - |
| De Castro Abreu 2013 (a) [51] | 25 | 72% | 92% | - |
| De Castro Abreu 2013 (b) [51] | 25 | 84% | 100% | - |
| Ismail 2007 [37] | 63 | - | 86% | - |
| Robinson 2006 [39] | 40 | 67.90% | 86.20% | 24 |
| Donnelly 2005 [28] | 46 | 72% | 84.90% | 6 |
| Brachytherapy | ||||
| Van Son 2020 B [29] | 50 | 18% grade III | 40% grade III 22% grade II | - |
| Yamada 2014 [30] | 42 | - | - | - |
[n] = number of patients assessed for given outcome, A = IIEF-15 was used, B = IIEF-5 was used, ¥: Tan (a) used focal CT, while Tan (b) used total CT. IIEF-5 = international index of erectile function 5-point scale, IIEF-15 = international index of erectile function 15-point scale, UCLA-PCI = University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index.
Table 4.
Risk of Bias assessment of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, NIH.
Table 4.
Risk of Bias assessment of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, NIH.
| Study | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 * | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Q12 | Q13 | Q14 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmad 2013 [47] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Ahmed 2011 [44] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| Baco 2014 [33] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| Berge 2010 [36] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| Berge 2011 [46] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Bomers 2020 [58] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Clarke 2007 [38] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Crook 2019 [43] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Crouzet 2012 [34] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Crouzet 2017 [45] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| De castro Abreu 2013 [51] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Devos 2019 (HIFU) [41] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Devos 2019 (RP) [41] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Donnelly 2005 [28] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Hostiou 2019 [35] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Ismail 2007 [37] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Jones 2018 [31] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Kanthabalan 2017 [57] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Kollmeier 2017 [55] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Li 2014 [50] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Li 2015 [48] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Lopez 2019 [54] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Mohler 2019 [26] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Murat 2009 [42] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| NG 2007 [53] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Pisters 2008 [52] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| Robinson 2006 [39] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| Safavy 2019 [60] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| Seabra 2009 [27] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Shah 2016 [32] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Siddiqui 2015 [56] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Siddiqui 2016 [49] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Tan 2020 [59] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Van Son 2020 [29] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Ward 2005 [40] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Yamada 2014 [30] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 9 |
*: a median postoperative follow-up period of 24 months was considered adequate.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Abufaraj, M.; Siyam, A.; Ali, M.R.; Suarez-Ibarrola, R.; Yang, L.; Foerster, B.; Shariat, S.F. Functional Outcomes after Local Salvage Therapies for Radiation-Recurrent Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review. Cancers 2021, 13, 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13020244
AMA Style
Abufaraj M, Siyam A, Ali MR, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Yang L, Foerster B, Shariat SF. Functional Outcomes after Local Salvage Therapies for Radiation-Recurrent Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review. Cancers. 2021; 13(2):244. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13020244
Chicago/Turabian StyleAbufaraj, Mohammad, Abdelmuez Siyam, Mustafa Rami Ali, Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola, Lin Yang, Beat Foerster, and Shahrokh F. Shariat. 2021. "Functional Outcomes after Local Salvage Therapies for Radiation-Recurrent Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review" Cancers 13, no. 2: 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13020244
APA StyleAbufaraj, M., Siyam, A., Ali, M. R., Suarez-Ibarrola, R., Yang, L., Foerster, B., & Shariat, S. F. (2021). Functional Outcomes after Local Salvage Therapies for Radiation-Recurrent Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review. Cancers, 13(2), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13020244
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
