Objectives
To compare salvage robot‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) outcomes in patients who underwent radiation and those who underwent focal ablation as primary therapies.
Patients and Methods
We evaluated 126 patients who underwent salvage RALPbetween 2008 and 2018. Of these, 94 (74.6%) received radiation and 32 focal ablation (25.4%) as primary therapy. These groups were compared with regard to clinical, oncological and functional outcomes. Kaplan–Meier curves and regression models were used to identify survival estimations and their predictors.
Results
Before surgery, more patients were potent in the focal ablation group compared to the radiation group (46.9% vs 22.6%; P = 0.013). Peri‐operative characteristics and complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups. Postoperative catheterization duration was shorter in the focal ablation group (mean 10 vs 16 days; P = 0.018). At final pathology, the focal ablation group had higher non‐organ‐confined disease (71% vs 50%; P = 0.042) and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates (43.8% vs 17%; P = 0.004) as compared to the radiation group; however, 5‐year biochemical recurrence (BCR)‐free survival rates were similar (59% vs 56%; P = 0.761). Postoperative 1‐year full (no pads/day) and social (0–1 pad/day) continence rates were significantly higher in the focal ablation as compared to the radiation group (77.3% vs 39.2%, P = 0.002, and 87.5% vs 51.3%, P = 0.002, respectively). Multivariate analyses showed primary focal ablation and nerve‐sparing to be predictors of postoperative continence. Erectile function was preserved in 13% and 27% of preoperatively potent patients in the radiation and focal ablation groups, respectively (P = 0.435). No predictors were identified for postoperative potency.
Conclusions
Radiation was associated with inferior functional outcomes after salvage RALP. Focal therapies were associated with higher non‐organ‐confined disease and PSMrates, with no significant difference in short‐term BCR‐free survival.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.