Salvage therapy for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas G. Zaorsky ◽  
Jeremie Calais ◽  
Stefano Fanti ◽  
Derya Tilki ◽  
Tanya Dorff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Salvage Therapy

A review of radical prostatectomy outcomes in active surveillance patients—The Sunnybrook experience.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 104-104
Author(s):  
V. Jethava ◽  
D. Vesprini ◽  
D. A. Loblaw ◽  
A. Mamedov ◽  
R. Nam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Mortality Proportion ◽  
Doubling Times ◽  
Cutaneous Cancer

104 Background: Prostate cancer is the most prevalent non-cutaneous cancer among North American men. Approximately 50% of these are favorable risk cancers; the NCCN guideline recommends active surveillance for these patients. Patients are generally followed by serial PSAs, DREs and/or TRUS-guided biopsies with triggers identified for each test. Consequently, about 30% of these cancers will be reclassified to a higher risk and require definitive treatment. Cases treated with radical prostatectomy (rP) give important insights into the biology of these cancers. Methods: The ASURE database of active surveillance patients was used to identify cases; a retrospective chart review was completed. The following variables were extracted: primary reason for rP; % biochemical failure; % of patients requiring salvage radiation or hormone therapy; Gleason score (GS), tumor size staging and nodal status in the rP specimen; cause and rate of mortality; proportion of patients treated for PSA-doubling times less then 3 years presenting with a GS greater than 7. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Results: Of 566 patients in the ASURE database, the charts of 26 patients having an rP were extracted. The primary cause for an rP was a PSA-doubling times less than 3 years (57% of patients) followed by a biopsy indicating a GS of 4+3 or greater (19%). 7% of patients (2/26) were not reclassified but preferred to be treated with rP. 4 patients had biochemical failure (15%) all 4 had salvage therapy. There was 1 cause-specific death. 85% of rP specimens had GS 7, while the remaining had GS 6. Half of these GS 7 individuals had PSA doubling times of less than 3 years. Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy appears to be an effective deferred treatment for patients who are reclassified on active surveillance as evidenced by low prostate-cancer mortality, low rates of biochemical failure acceptable use of salvage therapy. Of interest is that the majority patients with PSAdt < 3 y have Gleason 7 disease on specimen. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Redefining the role of adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy for T3 disease and/or positive margins.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 367-367
Author(s):  
Barry W. Goy ◽  
In-Lu Amy Liu
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Positive Margins ◽  
Salvage Radiation Therapy

367 Background: SWOG 8794 recommends adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for T3 and/or positive margins. Our purpose was to assess 12-year outcomes on 862 RP patients who had either T3 and/or positive margins who underwent surveillance, salvage radiation therapy (SRT), or hormonal therapy (HT), while categorizing these patients into very low risk (VLR), low risk (LR), high risk (HR), and ultra high risk (UHR) groups. Methods: From 2004 - 2007, 862 RP patients had adverse factors of extracapsular penetration (T3a), seminal vesicle invasion (T3b), positive margins, and/or detectable post-operative PSA. Management included surveillance (54.8%), SRT (36.8%), and HT (8.5%) as first salvage therapy, and 21.5% eventually received hormonal therapy. Twenty patients underwent ART, and were excluded from this analysis. We assessed prognostic factors using multivariable analysis, and 12-year estimates of freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from salvage therapy (FFST), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS). VLR were those with Gleason Score (GS) of 6. LR were GS 3+4 with only T3a or positive margins, but an undetectable postoperative PSA <0.1. HR were T3b with GS 7-10, any GS 7-10 with T3a/b and positive margins, but an undetectable PSA. UHR were those with a detectable PSA with a GS 7-10. Results: Median follow-up was 12.1 years. Median age was 61.6 years. Median time to first salvage treatment for VLR, LR, HR, and UHR were 10.8, 11.1, 5.3, and 0.6 years, p<0.001. 12-year estimates of FFBF for VLR, LR, HR, and UHR were 60.2%, 52.9%, 28.4%, and 0%, p<0.0001. For FFST, 70.9%, 68.6%, 40.5%, and 0%, p<0.0001. For DMFS, 99.1%, 97.8%, 88.6%, and 63.6%, p<0.0001. For PCSS, 99.4%, 99.5%, 93.5%, and 78.9%, p<0.0001. For OS, 91.8%, 91.8%, 81.0%, and 69.9%, p<0.0001. Conclusions: Outcomes of T3 and/or positive margins using surveillance or SRT as initial management yields excellent outcomes for VLR and LR groups, in which ART should be avoided. For HR, ART can be considered reasonable, since FFBF is only 28.4%. For VHR, these patients may benefit from combined hormonal therapy and ART.

Role of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radiation Therapy

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (32) ◽  
pp. 8198-8203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Stephenson ◽  
James A. Eastham
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Local Recurrence ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Biochemical Recurrence ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Salvage Radical Prostatectomy

Patients with isolated local recurrence of prostate cancer after radiation therapy may potentially be cured of their disease by salvage radical prostatectomy (RP). The stage-specific 5-year cancer-control rates of salvage RP resemble those of standard RP. However, the ability to effectively administer salvage treatment to patients with radiorecurrent disease is compromised by the lack of diagnostic tests with sufficient sensitivity and specificity to detect local recurrence at an early stage while it is amenable to local salvage therapy. By the time biochemical recurrence is declared using the current American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition, the majority of patients have advanced local disease, precluding successful local salvage therapy. When salvage RP is performed at prostate-specific antigen levels of 10 ng/mL or less, an estimated 70% of patients are free of disease at 5 years. With better patient selection and technical modifications, the morbidity associated with salvage RP has improved substantially. Rates of urinary incontinence and anastomotic stricture are acceptable, although one third of patients will experience these complications. Salvage cryotherapy is a minimally invasive alternative to salvage RP, but cancer-control rates appear to be inferior and it does not provide a clear advantage over salvage RP in terms of reduced morbidity. Patients with local recurrence after radiation therapy are at increased risk of metastatic progression and cancer-specific mortality. Currently, salvage RP represents the only curative treatment option for these patients. Salvage RP may favorably alter the natural history of biochemical recurrence after radiation therapy, but it must be instituted early in the course of recurrent disease to be effective.

IN MEN WITH RISING PSA AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY, 8Q24 PROSTATE CANCER RISK ALLELES HELP PREDICT THREATENING CANCER PROGRESSION AND NEED FOR SALVAGE THERAPY

2009 ◽  
Vol 181 (4S) ◽  
pp. 269-269
Author(s):  
William J. Catalona ◽  
Carol H Jin ◽  
Kimberly A Roehl ◽  
Stacy Loeb ◽  
Brian T. Helfand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cancer Progression ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Risk Alleles

scholarly journals Salvage Radical Prostatectomy after External Beam Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review of Current Approaches

2015 ◽  
Vol 94 (4) ◽  
pp. 373-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deliu Victor Matei ◽  
Matteo Ferro ◽  
Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa ◽  
Giuseppe Renne ◽  
Nicolae Crisan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Local Treatment ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Selection Of

Background: Radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is a standard treatment for prostate cancer patients. Despite this, the rate of intraprostatic relapses after primary EBRT is still not negligible. There is no consensus on the most appropriate management of these patients after EBRT failure. For these patients, local salvage therapy such as radical prostatectomy, cryotherapy, and brachytherapy may be indicated. Objective: The objectives of this review were to analyze the eligibility criteria for careful selection of appropriate patients and to evaluate the oncological results and complications for each method. Methods: A review of the literature was performed to identify studies of local salvage therapy for patients who had failed primary EBRT for localized prostate cancer. Results: Most studies demonstrated that local salvage therapy after EBRT may provide long-term local control in appropriately selected patients, although toxicity is often significant. Conclusions: Our results suggest that for localized prostate cancer recurrence after EBRT, the selection of a local treatment modality should be made on a patient-by-patient basis. An improvement in selection criteria and an integrated definition of biochemical failure for all salvage methods are required to determine which provides the best oncological outcome and least comorbidity.

Validation of the Decipher prostate cancer classifier in intermediate to high-risk men treated with radical prostatectomy but without additional therapy upon PSA rise.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 173-173
Author(s):  
Ashley Ross ◽  
Kasra Yousefi ◽  
Bruce J. Trock ◽  
Voleak Choeurng ◽  
Lucia L.C. Lam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Medical Institute ◽  
Cancer Tissue ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Metastatic Progression

173 Background: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a primary treatment option for men with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. Though many will be effectively cured with local therapy alone, these men are by definition at higher risk of adverse pathologic findings and clinical disease recurrence. The Decipher test has been previously shown to predict metastatic progression in cohorts that included adjuvant and salvage therapy after RP. Here we evaluate Decipher in a natural history cohort of at risk men who received no additional treatment until the time of metastatic progression. Methods: Men with NCCN intermediate or high risk localized prostate cancer treated with RP at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institute (1992-2010) with at least 5 years of post-operative follow up were identified. Only men with initial undetectable PSA after surgery and who received no therapy prior to metastasis detection were included (n=765). A case-cohort design was used to randomly sample the cohort. The highest Gleason grade cancer tissue was used for RNA extraction and Decipher genomic classifier (GC) scores were calculated with a locked 22-biomarker signature and algorithm. Results: GC results were obtained for 260 patients, 28% had positive margins, 77% had EPE, 28% had SVI, 20% had lymph node invasion and 36% had Gleason ≥8 disease. Median follow up was 9 (IQR 6-12) years and at 15 years post RP the cumulative incidence of BCR, metastasis and prostate cancer specific death was 38%, 21% and 9%. Median GC score was 0.34 (IQR: 0.22-0.52) and was significantly higher among men experiencing metastatic progression during follow up (0.47 vs 0.28 respectively p<0.001). In UVA and MVA (adjusting for clinical covariates), GC had an HR of 1.48 (95% CI: 1.30-1.69, p<0.001) and 1.37 (95% CI: 1.21-1.55, p<0.001) per 10% increase, respectively. Conclusions: The majority of the men in this study had excellent long-term outcomes with surgery alone. Elevated Decipher scores correlated with metastatic events, independent of clinical risk factors. Use of Decipher may allow for selection of candidates for immediate vs. delayed adjuvant or salvage therapy following prostatectomy.

scholarly journals Metastasis After Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiotherapy for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of Clinical Cohorts Adjusted for Case Mix

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 1508-1513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Zelefsky ◽  
James A. Eastham ◽  
Angel M. Cronin ◽  
Zvi Fuks ◽  
Zhigang Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Case Mix ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Metastatic Progression

Purpose We assessed the effect of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on distant metastases (DM) rates in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with RP or EBRT at a single specialized cancer center. Patients and Methods Patients with clinical stages T1c-T3b prostate cancer were treated with intensity-modulated EBRT (≥ 81 Gy) or RP. Both cohorts included patients treated with salvage radiotherapy or androgen-deprivation therapy for biochemical failure. Salvage therapy for patients with RP was delivered a median of 13 months after biochemical failure compared with 69 months for EBRT patients. DM was compared controlling for patient age, clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, and year of treatment. Results The 8-year probability of freedom from metastatic progression was 97% for RP patients and 93% for EBRT patients. After adjustment for case mix, surgery was associated with a reduced risk of metastasis (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.65; P < .001). Results were similar for prostate cancer–specific mortality (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.80; P = .015). Rates of metastatic progression were similar for favorable-risk disease (1.9% difference in 8-year metastasis-free survival), somewhat reduced for intermediate-risk disease (3.3%), and more substantially reduced in unfavorable-risk disease (7.8% in 8-year metastatic progression). Conclusion Metastatic progression is infrequent in men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with either RP or EBRT. RP patients with higher-risk disease treated had a lower risk of metastatic progression and prostate cancer–specific death than EBRT patients. These results may be confounded by differences in the use and timing of salvage therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document