Does adding local salvage ablation therapy provide survival advantage for patients with locally recurrent prostate cancer following radiotherapy?

Whole gland salvage ablation post-radiation failure in prostate cancer

Authors

  • Shiva Madhwan Nair Departments of Urology and Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
  • Andrew Warner b Department of Radiation Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
  • Arnon Lavi Departments of Urology and Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
  • George Rodrigues Department of Radiation Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
  • Joseph L. Chin Departments of Urology and Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6676

Keywords:

androgen deprivation therapy; cryotherapy; prostate cancer; radiation; recurrence; high frequency ultrasound ablation

Abstract

Introduction: Some men who experience prostate cancer recurrence post-radiotherapy may be candidates for local salvage therapy, avoiding and delaying systemic treatments. Our aim was to assess the impact of clinical outcomes of adding salvage local treatment in prostate cancer patients who have failed radiation therapy.

Methods: Following radiation biochemical failure, salvage transperineal cryotherapy (sCT, n=186), transrectal high intensity focused ultrasound ablation (sHIFU, n=113), or no salvage treatment (NST, identified from the pan-Canadian Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification [ProCaRS] database, n=982) were compared with propensity-score matching. Primary endpoints were cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS).

Results: Median followup was 11.6, 25.1, and 14.3 years following NST, sCT, and sHIFU, respectively. Two propensity score-matched analyses were performed: 1) 196 NST vs. 98 sCT; and 2) 177 NST vs. 59 sHIFU. In the first comparison, there were 78 deaths and 49 prostate cancer deaths for NST vs. 80 deaths and 24 prostate cancer deaths for sCT. There were significant benefits in CSS (p<0.001) and OS (p<0.001) favoring sCT. In the second comparison, there were 52 deaths (31 from prostate cancer) for NST vs. 18 deaths (nine from prostate cancer) for sHIFU. There were no significant differences in CSS or OS possibility attributed to reduced sample size and shorter followup of sHIFU cohort.

Conclusions: In select men with recurrent prostate cancer post-radiation, further local treatment may lead to benefits in CSS. These hypothesis-generating findings should ideally be validated in a prospective clinical trial setting.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2020-09-28

How to Cite

Nair, S. M., Warner, A., Lavi, A., Rodrigues, G., & Chin, J. L. (2020). Does adding local salvage ablation therapy provide survival advantage for patients with locally recurrent prostate cancer following radiotherapy? Whole gland salvage ablation post-radiation failure in prostate cancer. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 15(4), 123–9. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6676

Issue

Vol. 15 No. 4 (2021): CUAJ April

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.