The outcomes of salvage robotic radical prostatectomy following radiation versus focal therapy: Does the primary treatment modality matter?

IF 1.9 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
BJUI compass Pub Date : 2025-05-01 DOI:10.1002/bco2.70019
Alireza Ghoreifi, Lorenzo Storino Ramacciotti, Masatomo Kaneko, Luis G. Medina, Giovanni E. Cacciamani, Shiran Konganige, Manju Aron, Sarmad Sadeghi, Hossein Jadvar, Hooman Djaladat, Rene Sotelo, Mihir M. Desai, Inderbir S. Gill, Monish Aron, Andre Luis Abreu
{"title":"The outcomes of salvage robotic radical prostatectomy following radiation versus focal therapy: Does the primary treatment modality matter?","authors":"Alireza Ghoreifi,&nbsp;Lorenzo Storino Ramacciotti,&nbsp;Masatomo Kaneko,&nbsp;Luis G. Medina,&nbsp;Giovanni E. Cacciamani,&nbsp;Shiran Konganige,&nbsp;Manju Aron,&nbsp;Sarmad Sadeghi,&nbsp;Hossein Jadvar,&nbsp;Hooman Djaladat,&nbsp;Rene Sotelo,&nbsp;Mihir M. Desai,&nbsp;Inderbir S. Gill,&nbsp;Monish Aron,&nbsp;Andre Luis Abreu","doi":"10.1002/bco2.70019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We aim to compare salvage robotic radical prostatectomy (sRRP) for recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after primary radiation (RT) versus focal therapy (FT).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients who underwent sRRP following primary local therapy for PCa were identified. Perioperative findings and functional/oncologic outcomes were compared in RT versus FT groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, 112 patients were included, with 84 receiving RT and 28 FT as primary treatment. Median age and PSA were 68 years and 5.4 ng/mL, respectively. There was one rectal injury in the RT group. The overall 90-day complications were significantly higher in RT group (33% vs. 11%, <i>p</i> = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, history of RT and prolonged operative time were associated with a higher rate of 90-day complications. The 6- and 12-month continence rates were higher in FT group (50% vs. 20%, <i>p</i> = 0.02 and 69% vs. 33%, <i>p</i> = 0.03). Potency at 12 months was better preserved in FT group (46% vs. 12%, <i>p</i> = 0.01). On final sRRP pathology, the rates of grade group ≥ 4 (51% vs. 36%, <i>p</i> = 0.2), pT3 (69% vs. 75%, <i>p</i> = 0.6), positive nodes (30% vs. 18%, <i>p</i> = 0.2) and positive margins (33% vs. 39%, <i>p</i> = 0.5) were similar for RT versus FT, respectively. The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was 86% for RT versus 94% for FT (<i>p</i> = 0.6).</p>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>sRRP for recurrent PCa after FT is associated with lower complications and higher urinary continence and potency rates than patients who received primary RT.</p>\n </section>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":72420,"journal":{"name":"BJUI compass","volume":"6 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bco2.70019","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJUI compass","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bco2.70019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

We aim to compare salvage robotic radical prostatectomy (sRRP) for recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after primary radiation (RT) versus focal therapy (FT).

Materials and Methods

Patients who underwent sRRP following primary local therapy for PCa were identified. Perioperative findings and functional/oncologic outcomes were compared in RT versus FT groups.

Results

Overall, 112 patients were included, with 84 receiving RT and 28 FT as primary treatment. Median age and PSA were 68 years and 5.4 ng/mL, respectively. There was one rectal injury in the RT group. The overall 90-day complications were significantly higher in RT group (33% vs. 11%, p = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, history of RT and prolonged operative time were associated with a higher rate of 90-day complications. The 6- and 12-month continence rates were higher in FT group (50% vs. 20%, p = 0.02 and 69% vs. 33%, p = 0.03). Potency at 12 months was better preserved in FT group (46% vs. 12%, p = 0.01). On final sRRP pathology, the rates of grade group ≥ 4 (51% vs. 36%, p = 0.2), pT3 (69% vs. 75%, p = 0.6), positive nodes (30% vs. 18%, p = 0.2) and positive margins (33% vs. 39%, p = 0.5) were similar for RT versus FT, respectively. The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was 86% for RT versus 94% for FT (p = 0.6).

Conclusion

sRRP for recurrent PCa after FT is associated with lower complications and higher urinary continence and potency rates than patients who received primary RT.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

补救性机器人前列腺根治术放疗后与局灶治疗后的疗效:主要治疗方式重要吗?
我们的目的是比较机器人根治性前列腺切除术(sRRP)对原发性放疗(RT)和局灶性治疗(FT)后复发性前列腺癌(PCa)的疗效。材料与方法对PCa局部治疗后行sRRP的患者进行分析。比较RT组和FT组围手术期表现和功能/肿瘤预后。结果共纳入112例患者,其中84例接受RT治疗,28例接受FT治疗。中位年龄和PSA分别为68岁和5.4 ng/mL。RT组直肠损伤1例。放疗组90天总并发症明显高于对照组(33% vs. 11%, p = 0.03)。在多变量分析中,放疗史和手术时间延长与较高的90天并发症发生率相关。FT组6个月和12个月的尿失禁率较高(50%比20%,p = 0.02; 69%比33%,p = 0.03)。FT组12个月时效力保存较好(46%比12%,p = 0.01)。在最终sRRP病理方面,RT和FT的分级组≥4(51%对36%,p = 0.2)、pT3(69%对75%,p = 0.6)、阳性淋巴结(30%对18%,p = 0.2)和阳性边缘(33%对39%,p = 0.5)的比例相似。3年生化无复发生存率RT组为86%,FT组为94% (p = 0.6)。结论sRRP治疗复发性前列腺癌术后并发症低,尿失禁率和效价率高于原发性RT治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信