Functional Outcomes after Local Salvage Therapies for Radiation-Recurrent Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the rate and severity of functional outcomes after salvage therapy for radiation recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: This systematic review of the MEDLINE/PubMed database yielded 35 studies, evaluating salvage radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT), high-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU) and cryotherapy (CT) after failure of primary radiation therapy. Data on pre- and post-salvage rates and severity of functional outcomes (urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and lower urinary tract symptoms) were collected from each study. RESULTS: The rates of severe urinary incontinence ranged from 28-88%, 4.5-42%, 0-6.5%, 2.4-8% post salvage RP, HIFU, CT and BT, respectively. The rates of erectile dysfunction were relatively high reaching as much as 90%, 94.6%, 100%, 62% following RP, HIFU, CT and BT, respectively. Nonetheless, the high pre-salvage rates of ED preclude accurate estimation of the effect of salvage therapy. There was an increase in the median IPSS following salvage HIFU, BT and CT ranging from 2.5-3.4, 3.5-12, and 2, respectively. Extended follow-up showed a return-to-baseline IPSS in a salvage BT study. The reported data suffer from selection, reporting, publication and period of study biases, making inter-study comparisons inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: local salvage therapies for radiation recurrent PCa affect continence, lower urinary tract symptoms and sexual functions. The use of local salvage therapies may be warranted in the setting of local disease control, but each individual decision must be made with the informed patient in a shared decision working process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".