Cargando…

A systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer

Although radiotherapy to the prostate for cancer is effective, recurrence occurs in 10–15% within 5 years. Traditional salvage treatments for men with radiorecurrent prostate cancer comprise of watchful waiting (WW) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or radical prostatectomy (RP). Ne...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khoo, Christopher C., Miah, Saiful, Connor, Martin J., Tam, Joseph, Winkler, Mathias, Ahmed, Hashim U., Shah, Taimur T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354313/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32676441
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.08.21
_version_ 1783558057737846784
author Khoo, Christopher C.
Miah, Saiful
Connor, Martin J.
Tam, Joseph
Winkler, Mathias
Ahmed, Hashim U.
Shah, Taimur T.
author_facet Khoo, Christopher C.
Miah, Saiful
Connor, Martin J.
Tam, Joseph
Winkler, Mathias
Ahmed, Hashim U.
Shah, Taimur T.
author_sort Khoo, Christopher C.
collection PubMed
description Although radiotherapy to the prostate for cancer is effective, recurrence occurs in 10–15% within 5 years. Traditional salvage treatments for men with radiorecurrent prostate cancer comprise of watchful waiting (WW) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or radical prostatectomy (RP). Neither strategy provides ideal therapeutic ratios. Salvage focal ablation is an emerging option. We performed a systematic review of the Medline and Embase databases for studies reporting outcomes of focal salvage brachytherapy (sBT), cryotherapy (sCT) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (sHIFU) for radiorecurrent prostate cancer (conception to April 2019). Results were screened for inclusion against predetermined eligibility criteria. Certain data were extracted, including rates of biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), metastasis, conversion to second-line therapies and adverse events. Of a total 134 articles returned from the search, 15 studies (14 case series and 1 comparative study) reported outcomes after focal sBT [5], sCT [7] and sHIFU [3]. Cohort size varied depending on intervention, with eligible studies of sBT being small case series. Median follow-up ranged from 10 to 56 months. Although pre-salvage demographics were similar [median age range, 61–75 years; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) range, 2.8–5.5 ng/mL], there was heterogeneity in patient selection, individual treatment protocols and outcome reporting. At 3 years, BDFS ranged from 61% to 71.4% after sBT, 48.1–72.4% after sCT and 48% after sHIFU. Only studies of sCT reported 5-year BDFS, which ranged from 46.5% to 54.4%. Rates of metastasis were low after all salvage modalities, as were conversion to second-line therapies (although this was poorly reported). Grade 3 adverse events were rare. This systematic review indicates that salvage focal ablation of radiorecurrent prostate cancer provides acceptable oncological outcomes and is well tolerated. Unfortunately, there is heterogeneity in the study design of existing evidence. Level 1 research comparing salvage focal therapies to existing whole-gland strategies is needed to further establish the role of these promising treatments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7354313
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73543132020-07-15 A systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer Khoo, Christopher C. Miah, Saiful Connor, Martin J. Tam, Joseph Winkler, Mathias Ahmed, Hashim U. Shah, Taimur T. Transl Androl Urol Review Article on Prostate Imaging and Focal Therapy Although radiotherapy to the prostate for cancer is effective, recurrence occurs in 10–15% within 5 years. Traditional salvage treatments for men with radiorecurrent prostate cancer comprise of watchful waiting (WW) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or radical prostatectomy (RP). Neither strategy provides ideal therapeutic ratios. Salvage focal ablation is an emerging option. We performed a systematic review of the Medline and Embase databases for studies reporting outcomes of focal salvage brachytherapy (sBT), cryotherapy (sCT) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (sHIFU) for radiorecurrent prostate cancer (conception to April 2019). Results were screened for inclusion against predetermined eligibility criteria. Certain data were extracted, including rates of biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), metastasis, conversion to second-line therapies and adverse events. Of a total 134 articles returned from the search, 15 studies (14 case series and 1 comparative study) reported outcomes after focal sBT [5], sCT [7] and sHIFU [3]. Cohort size varied depending on intervention, with eligible studies of sBT being small case series. Median follow-up ranged from 10 to 56 months. Although pre-salvage demographics were similar [median age range, 61–75 years; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) range, 2.8–5.5 ng/mL], there was heterogeneity in patient selection, individual treatment protocols and outcome reporting. At 3 years, BDFS ranged from 61% to 71.4% after sBT, 48.1–72.4% after sCT and 48% after sHIFU. Only studies of sCT reported 5-year BDFS, which ranged from 46.5% to 54.4%. Rates of metastasis were low after all salvage modalities, as were conversion to second-line therapies (although this was poorly reported). Grade 3 adverse events were rare. This systematic review indicates that salvage focal ablation of radiorecurrent prostate cancer provides acceptable oncological outcomes and is well tolerated. Unfortunately, there is heterogeneity in the study design of existing evidence. Level 1 research comparing salvage focal therapies to existing whole-gland strategies is needed to further establish the role of these promising treatments. AME Publishing Company 2020-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7354313/ /pubmed/32676441 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.08.21 Text en 2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article on Prostate Imaging and Focal Therapy
Khoo, Christopher C.
Miah, Saiful
Connor, Martin J.
Tam, Joseph
Winkler, Mathias
Ahmed, Hashim U.
Shah, Taimur T.
A systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer
title A systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer
title_full A systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer
title_fullStr A systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer
title_short A systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer
title_sort systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer
topic Review Article on Prostate Imaging and Focal Therapy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354313/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32676441
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.08.21
work_keys_str_mv AT khoochristopherc asystematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT miahsaiful asystematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT connormartinj asystematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT tamjoseph asystematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT winklermathias asystematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT ahmedhashimu asystematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT shahtaimurt asystematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT khoochristopherc systematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT miahsaiful systematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT connormartinj systematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT tamjoseph systematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT winklermathias systematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT ahmedhashimu systematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer
AT shahtaimurt systematicreviewofsalvagefocaltherapiesforlocalisednonmetastaticradiorecurrentprostatecancer