Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Prostatectomy | Original Article

Health-related quality of life following salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy or focal therapy

Authors: Severin Rodler, Dina Danninger, Lennert Eismann, Philipp Maximilian Kazmierczak, Friedrich Jokisch, Minglun Li, Armin Becker, Alexander Kretschmer, Christian Stief, Thilo Westhofen

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) is an important treatment option for patients with recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after radiotherapy (RT) or focal therapy (FT). However, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after sRP depending on the primary treatment is understudied.

Methods

Patients who underwent Salvage RP for recurrent PCa were analyzed. The primary outcome of this study was HRQOL assessed by the quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and its prostate specific QLQ-PR25 add-on. Secondary outcomes were functional outcome parameters (erectile function, continence) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS). Statistical analyses employed the chi-square test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Kaplan–Meier method, with a p value < 0.05 denoting significance.

Results

37 patients with RT as primary treatment (RT-sRP) and 22 patients with focal therapy prior sRP (FT-sRP) were analyzed. Mean global health score was not significantly different preoperatively (71.9 vs. 67.3, p = 0.89) as well as after a median of 32 months follow-up (54.9 vs. 50.6, p = 0.63) with impaired HRQOL after sRP in both groups. Baseline erectile dysfunction was more prevalent in the RT-sRP group (mean IIEF-5: 5.0) than in the FT-sRP group (mean IIEF-5: 8.5, p = 0.037). No differences were observed at follow-up for erectile function (IIEF-5-Score: 0.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.199) and continence (continence rate: 48.4% vs 52.9% (p = 0.763) between the RT-sRP and FT-sRP group. 5-year-BRFS was 60% (RT-sRP) and 68% (FT-sRP, p = 0.849).

Conclusions

sRP impacts HRQOL in patients with PCa after RT and FT with no significant differences. Comparison with HRQOL and BRFS of treatment alternatives is paramount to counsel patients for appropriate treatments.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Marra G et al (2021) Oncological outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer in the contemporary era: a multicenter retrospective study. Urol Oncol 39(5):296.e21-296.e29CrossRefPubMed Marra G et al (2021) Oncological outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer in the contemporary era: a multicenter retrospective study. Urol Oncol 39(5):296.e21-296.e29CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Preisser F et al (2023) Oncologic outcomes of lymph node dissection at salvage radical prostatectomy. Cancers (Basel) 15(12):3123CrossRefPubMed Preisser F et al (2023) Oncologic outcomes of lymph node dissection at salvage radical prostatectomy. Cancers (Basel) 15(12):3123CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Calleris G et al (2019) Is it worth to perform salvage radical prostatectomy for radio-recurrent prostate cancer? A literature review. World J Urol 37(8):1469–1483CrossRefPubMed Calleris G et al (2019) Is it worth to perform salvage radical prostatectomy for radio-recurrent prostate cancer? A literature review. World J Urol 37(8):1469–1483CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Chade DC et al (2012) Cancer control and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 61(5):961–971CrossRefPubMed Chade DC et al (2012) Cancer control and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 61(5):961–971CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Herrera-Caceres JO et al (2020) Salvage radical prostatectomy following focal therapy: functional and oncological outcomes. BJU Int 125(4):525–530CrossRefPubMed Herrera-Caceres JO et al (2020) Salvage radical prostatectomy following focal therapy: functional and oncological outcomes. BJU Int 125(4):525–530CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gontero P et al (2019) Salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer: morbidity and functional outcomes from a large multicenter series of open versus robotic approaches. J Urol 202(4):725–731CrossRefPubMed Gontero P et al (2019) Salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer: morbidity and functional outcomes from a large multicenter series of open versus robotic approaches. J Urol 202(4):725–731CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Onol FF et al (2020) Comparison of outcomes of salvage robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for post-primary radiation vs focal therapy. BJU Int 125(1):103–111CrossRefPubMed Onol FF et al (2020) Comparison of outcomes of salvage robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for post-primary radiation vs focal therapy. BJU Int 125(1):103–111CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kretschmer A et al (2021) Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 7(4):742–751CrossRefPubMed Kretschmer A et al (2021) Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 7(4):742–751CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Kretschmer A et al (2015) Surgical learning curve for open radical prostatectomy: is there an end to the learning curve? World J Urol 33(11):1721–1727CrossRefPubMed Kretschmer A et al (2015) Surgical learning curve for open radical prostatectomy: is there an end to the learning curve? World J Urol 33(11):1721–1727CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Aaronson NK et al (1993) The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376CrossRefPubMed Aaronson NK et al (1993) The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Snyder CF et al (2013) Using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in clinical practice for patient management: identifying scores requiring a clinician’s attention. Qual Life Res 22(10):2685–2691CrossRefPubMed Snyder CF et al (2013) Using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in clinical practice for patient management: identifying scores requiring a clinician’s attention. Qual Life Res 22(10):2685–2691CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Avery K et al (2004) ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 23(4):322–330CrossRefPubMed Avery K et al (2004) ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 23(4):322–330CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Rhoden EL et al (2002) The use of the simplified International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool to study the prevalence of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 14(4):245–250CrossRefPubMed Rhoden EL et al (2002) The use of the simplified International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool to study the prevalence of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 14(4):245–250CrossRefPubMed
14.
16.
go back to reference Cary KC et al (2014) Temporal trends and predictors of salvage cancer treatment after failure following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy: an analysis from the CaPSURE registry. Cancer 120(4):507–512CrossRefPubMed Cary KC et al (2014) Temporal trends and predictors of salvage cancer treatment after failure following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy: an analysis from the CaPSURE registry. Cancer 120(4):507–512CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Nguyen PL et al (2015) Adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy and strategies to mitigate them. Eur Urol 67(5):825–836CrossRefPubMed Nguyen PL et al (2015) Adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy and strategies to mitigate them. Eur Urol 67(5):825–836CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Dacal K, Sereika SM, Greenspan SL (2006) Quality of life in prostate cancer patients taking androgen deprivation therapy. J Am Geriatr Soc 54(1):85–90CrossRefPubMed Dacal K, Sereika SM, Greenspan SL (2006) Quality of life in prostate cancer patients taking androgen deprivation therapy. J Am Geriatr Soc 54(1):85–90CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Rosario DJ, Bourke L (2020) Cardiovascular disease and the androgen receptor: here we go again? Eur Urol 77(2):167–169CrossRefPubMed Rosario DJ, Bourke L (2020) Cardiovascular disease and the androgen receptor: here we go again? Eur Urol 77(2):167–169CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Nabid A et al (2018) Duration of androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a randomized phase III trial. Eur Urol 74(4):432–441CrossRefPubMed Nabid A et al (2018) Duration of androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a randomized phase III trial. Eur Urol 74(4):432–441CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Duchesne GM et al (2017) Health-related quality of life for immediate versus delayed androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with asymptomatic, non-curable prostate cancer (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18(9):1192–1201CrossRefPubMed Duchesne GM et al (2017) Health-related quality of life for immediate versus delayed androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with asymptomatic, non-curable prostate cancer (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18(9):1192–1201CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Spitznagel T et al (2021) Salvage robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound for ISUP 2/3 cancer. Urology 156:147–153CrossRefPubMed Spitznagel T et al (2021) Salvage robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound for ISUP 2/3 cancer. Urology 156:147–153CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Nathan A et al (2021) Salvage versus primary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity-matched comparative effectiveness study from a high-volume tertiary centre. Eur Urol Open Sci 27:43–52CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nathan A et al (2021) Salvage versus primary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity-matched comparative effectiveness study from a high-volume tertiary centre. Eur Urol Open Sci 27:43–52CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Kretschmer A et al (2020) Health-related quality of life after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis. World J Urol 38(12):3075–3083CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kretschmer A et al (2020) Health-related quality of life after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis. World J Urol 38(12):3075–3083CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Hopstaken JS et al (2022) An updated systematic review on focal therapy in localized prostate cancer: what has changed over the past 5 years? Eur Urol 81(1):5–33CrossRefPubMed Hopstaken JS et al (2022) An updated systematic review on focal therapy in localized prostate cancer: what has changed over the past 5 years? Eur Urol 81(1):5–33CrossRefPubMed
27.
Metadata
Title
Health-related quality of life following salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy or focal therapy
Authors
Severin Rodler
Dina Danninger
Lennert Eismann
Philipp Maximilian Kazmierczak
Friedrich Jokisch
Minglun Li
Armin Becker
Alexander Kretschmer
Christian Stief
Thilo Westhofen
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04945-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

World Journal of Urology 1/2024 Go to the issue