Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Radio-Recurrent Prostate Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review of Oncologic, Histopathologic and Functional Outcomes and Predictors of Good Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A valid treatment option for recurrence after definite radiotherapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer (PC) is salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP). However, data on SRP are scarce, possibly resulting in an underutilization. A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase, and Web of Science databases including studies published between January 1980 and April 2020. Overall, 23 English language articles including a total number of 2323 patients were selected according to PRISMA criteria. The overall median follow-up was 37.5 months (IQR 35.5-52.5). Biochemical-recurrence (BCR)-free probability ranged from 34% to 83% at five years, respectively, and from 31% to 37% at 10 years. Cancer specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) ranged from 88.7% to 98% and 64% to 95% at five years and from 72% to 83% and 65% to 72% at 10 years, respectively. Positive surgical margins ranged from 14% to 45.8% and pathologic organ-confined disease was reported from 20% to 57%. The rate of pathologic > T2-disease ranged from 37% to 80% and pN1 disease differed between 0% to 78.4%. Pre-SRP PSA, pre-SRP Gleason Score (GS), pathologic stage after SRP, and pathologic lymph node involvement seemed to be the strongest prognostic factors for good outcomes. SRP provides accurate histopathological and functional outcomes, as well as durable cancer control. Careful patient counseling in a shared decision-making process is recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".