Background: Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) historically yields poor functional outcomes and high complication rates. However, recent reports on robotic sRP show improved results. Our objectives were to evaluate sRP oncological outcomes and predictors of positive margins and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Methods: We retrospectively collected data of sRP for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers in United States, Australia and Europe, from 2000 to 2016. SM and BCR were evaluated in a univariate and multivariable analysis. Overall and cancer-specific survival were also assessed. Results: We included 414 cases, 63.5% of them performed after radiotherapy. Before sRP the majority of patients had biopsy Gleason score (GS) ≤7 (55.5%) and imaging negative or with prostatic bed involvement only (93.3%). Final pathology showed aggressive histology in 39.7% (GS ≥9 27.6%), with 52.9% having ≥pT3 disease and 16% pN+. SM was positive in 29.7%. Five years BCR-Free, cancer-specific survival and OS were 56.7%, 97.7% and 92.1%, respectively. On multivariable analysis pathological T (pT3a odds ratio [OR] 2.939, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.469–5.879; ≥pT3b OR 2.428–95% CI 1.333–4.423) and N stage (pN1 OR 2.871, 95% CI 1.503–5.897) were independent predictors of positive margins. Pathological T stage ≥T3b (OR 2.348 95% CI 1.338–4.117) and GS (up to OR 7.183, 95% CI 1.906–27.068 for GS >8) were independent predictors for BCR. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and limited follow-up. Conclusions: In a contemporary series, sRP showed promising oncological control in the medium term despite aggressive pathological features. BCR risk increased in case of locally advanced disease and higher GS. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Oncological outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer in the contemporary era: A multicenter retrospective study

Marra G.;Calleris G.;Oderda M.;Alessio P.;Palazzetti A.;Battaglia A.;Pisano F.;Munegato S.;Filippini C.;Ricardi U.;Gontero P.
2021

Abstract

Background: Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) historically yields poor functional outcomes and high complication rates. However, recent reports on robotic sRP show improved results. Our objectives were to evaluate sRP oncological outcomes and predictors of positive margins and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Methods: We retrospectively collected data of sRP for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers in United States, Australia and Europe, from 2000 to 2016. SM and BCR were evaluated in a univariate and multivariable analysis. Overall and cancer-specific survival were also assessed. Results: We included 414 cases, 63.5% of them performed after radiotherapy. Before sRP the majority of patients had biopsy Gleason score (GS) ≤7 (55.5%) and imaging negative or with prostatic bed involvement only (93.3%). Final pathology showed aggressive histology in 39.7% (GS ≥9 27.6%), with 52.9% having ≥pT3 disease and 16% pN+. SM was positive in 29.7%. Five years BCR-Free, cancer-specific survival and OS were 56.7%, 97.7% and 92.1%, respectively. On multivariable analysis pathological T (pT3a odds ratio [OR] 2.939, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.469–5.879; ≥pT3b OR 2.428–95% CI 1.333–4.423) and N stage (pN1 OR 2.871, 95% CI 1.503–5.897) were independent predictors of positive margins. Pathological T stage ≥T3b (OR 2.348 95% CI 1.338–4.117) and GS (up to OR 7.183, 95% CI 1.906–27.068 for GS >8) were independent predictors for BCR. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and limited follow-up. Conclusions: In a contemporary series, sRP showed promising oncological control in the medium term despite aggressive pathological features. BCR risk increased in case of locally advanced disease and higher GS. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings.
39
5
1
9
Open; Prostate cancer; Recurrence; Robotic; Salvage radical prostatectomy
Marra G.; Karnes R.J.; Calleris G.; Oderda M.; Alessio P.; Palazzetti A.; Battaglia A.; Pisano F.; Munegato S.; Munoz F.; Filippini C.; Ricardi U.; Linares E.; Sanchez-Salas R.; Goonewardene S.; Dasgupta P.; Challacombe B.; Popert R.; Cahill D.; Gillatt D.; Persad R.; Palou J.; Joniau S.; Smelzo S.; Piechaud T.; Taille A.D.L.; Roupret M.; Albisinni S.; van Velthoven R.; Morlacco A.; Vidit S.; Gandaglia G.; Mottrie A.; Smith J.; Joshi S.; Fiscus G.; Berger A.; Aron M.; Abreu A.; Gill I.S.; Van Der Poel H.; Tilki D.; Murphy D.; Lawrentschuk N.; Davis J.; Gontero P.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Oncological_outcome_1-s2.0-S1078143920305718-main.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 789.55 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
789.55 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2318/1796024
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 9
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 7
social impact