BJUI compass · 2025
The outcomes of salvage robotic radical prostatectomy following radiation versus focal therapy: Does the primary treatment modality matter?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ghoreifi Alireza, Ramacciotti Lorenzo Storino, Kaneko Masatomo, Medina Luis G, Cacciamani Giovanni E, Konganige Shiran, Aron Manju, Sadeghi Sarmad, Jadvar Hossein, Djaladat Hooman, Sotelo Rene, Desai Mihir M, Gill Inderbir S, Aron Monish, Abreu Andre Luis
Аннотация
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.
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.