Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Clinical
  • Published:

Management of recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: long-term results from CALGB 9687 (Alliance), a prospective multi-institutional salvage prostatectomy series

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 22, pages 309–316 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

To evaluate efficacy and morbidity prospectively in a contemporary multi-institutional salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) series.

Methods

Forty-one men were enrolled between 1997 and 2006, who suffered biopsy-proven recurrent prostate cancer (CaP) after receiving ≥ 60c Gy radiation as primary treatment for cT1–2NXM0 disease. Surgical morbidity, quality of life, biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated.

Results

Twenty-four men had undergone external beam radiotherapy, 11 brachytherapy, and six both. Median time between radiation and SRP was 64 months. Median age at SRP was 64 years. Pathologic staging revealed 44% pT2, 54% pT3, and 3% pT4. Surgical margins were positive in 17 and 88% were pN0. Twenty-two percent required intraoperative blood transfusion. Three rectal and one obturator nerve injuries occurred. Seventeen of 38 evaluable patients (45%) had urinary incontinence ( ≥ 3 pads/day) prior to SRP; 88% reported urinary incontinence at 6 months, 85% at 12 months, 63% at 24 months after SRP. Furthermore, 37% of men reported impotence prior to SRP; 78% reported impotence at 6 months, 82% at 12 months, and 44% at 24 months after SRP. The 2-, 5- and 10-year BPFS rates were 51, 39, and 33% respectively; the 2-, 5- and 10-year OS rates were 100, 89, and 52%, respectively, at median follow-up 91 months.

Conclusions

Modern surgical techniques continue to be associated with significant peri-operative complication rates. Nevertheless, SRP may benefit carefully selected patients through durable oncologic control

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Meng MV, Elkin EP, Latini DM, Duchane J, Carroll PR. Treatment of patients with high risk localized prostate cancer: results from cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor (CaPSURE). J Urol. 2005;173:1557–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2141–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kupelian PA, Buchsbaum JC, Patel C, Elshaikh M, Reddy CA, Zippe C et al. Impact of biochemical failure on overall survival after radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer in the PSA era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52:704–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, Lee HJ, Lombardi D, Ling CC et al. High dose radiation delivered by intensity modulated conformal radiotherapy improves the outcome of localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166:876–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Shipley WU, Thames HD, Sandler HM, Hanks GE, Zietman AL, Perez CA et al. Radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional pooled analysis. JAMA. 1999;281:1598–604.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zelefsky MJ, Chan H, Hunt M, Yamada Y, Shippy AM, Amols H. Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;176:1415–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Antolak JA, Kuban DA, Rosen II. Prostate biopsy status and PSA nadir level as early surrogates for treatment failure: analysis of a prostate cancer randomized radiation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:677–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Crook J, Malone S, Perry G, Bahadur Y, Robertson S, Abdolell M. Postradiotherapy prostate biopsies: what do they really mean? Results for 498 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48:355–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Borghede G, Aldenborg F, Wurzinger E, Johansson KA, Hedelin H. Analysis of the local control in lymph-node staged localized prostate cancer treated by external beam radiotherapy, assessed by digital rectal examination, serum prostate-specific antigen and biopsy. Br J Urol. 1997;80:247–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Holzman M, Carlton CE Jr, Scardino PT. The frequency and morbidity of local tumor recurrence after definitive radiotherapy for stage C prostate cancer. J Urol. 1991;146:1578–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fuks Z, Leibel SA, Wallner KE, Begg CB, Fair WR, Anderson LL et al. The effect of local control on metastatic dissemination in carcinoma of the prostate: long-term results in patients treated with 125I implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21:537–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brenner PC, Russo P, Wood DP, Morse MJ, Donat SM, Fair WR. Salvage radical prostatectomy in the management of locally recurrent prostate cancer after 125I implantation. Br J Urol. 1995;75:44–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pontes JE, Montie J, Klein E, Huben R. Salvage surgery for radiation failure in prostate cancer. Cancer. 1993;71:976–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahlering TE, Lieskovsky G, Skinner DG. Salvage surgery plus androgen deprivation for radioresistant prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 1992;147:900–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stein A, Smith RB, deKernion JB. Salvage radical prostatectomy after failure of curative radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of prostate. Urology. 1992;40:197–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rainwater LM, Zincke H. Radical prostatectomy after radiation therapy for cancer of the prostate: feasibility and prognosis. J Urol. 1988;140:1455–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nguyen PL, D’Amico AV, Lee AK, Suh WW. Patient selection, cancer control, and complications after salvage local therapy for postradiation prostate-specific antigen failure: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer. 2007;110:1417–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mitchell JM. Urologists’ use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1629–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chade DC, Shariat SF, Cronin AM, Savage CJ, Karnes RJ, Blute ML et al. Salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a multi-institutional collaboration. Eur Urol. 2011;60:205–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stephenson AJ, Eastham JA. Role of salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8198–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grossfeld GD, Li YP, PL DP, Carroll PR. Patterns of failure after primary local therapy for prostate cancer and rationale for secondary therapy. Urology. 2002;60:57–62. discussion62-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Touma NJ, Izawa JI, Chin JL. Current status of local salvage therapies following radiation failure for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005;173:373–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ward JF, Sebo TJ, Blute ML, Zincke H. Salvage surgery for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: contemporary outcomes. J Urol. 2005;173:1156–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Bianco FJ Jr, DiBlasio CJ, Fearn PA, Eastham JA. Morbidity and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy. J Urol. 2004;172:2239–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Stephenson AJ, Diblasio CJ, Fearn PA, Eastham JA. Long-term oncologic results of salvage radical prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:448–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Heidenreich A, Richter S, Thuer D, Pfister D. Prognostic parameters, complications, and oncologic and functional outcome of salvage radical prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after 21st-century radiotherapy. Eur Urol. 2010;57:437–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanderson KM, Penson DF, Cai J, Groshen S, Stein JP, Lieskovsky G et al. Salvage radical prostatectomy: quality of life outcomes and long-term oncological control of radiorecurrent prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;176:2025–31. discussion 2031-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Krupski TL, Saigal CS, Hanley J, Schonlau M, Litwin MS. Patterns of care for men with prostate cancer after failure of primary treatment. Cancer. 2006;107:258–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Van Der Poel HG, Moonen L, Horenblas S. Sequential treatment for recurrent localized prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:377–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Leonardo C, Simone G, Papalia R, Franco G, Guaglianone S, Gallucci M. Salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy. Int J Urol. 2009;16:584–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kaffenberger SD, Keegan KA, Bansal NK, Morgan TM, Tang DH, Barocas DA et al. Salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A single institution, 5-year experience. J Urol 2013;189:507–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yuh B, Ruel N, Muldrew S, Mejia R, Novara G, Kawachi M et al. Complications and outcomes of salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single-institution experience. BJU Int 2014; 113: 769–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chauhan S, Patel MB, Coelho R, Liss M, Rocco B, Sivaraman AK et al. Preliminary Analysis of the Feasibility and Safety of Salvage Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy After Radiation Failure: Multi-Institutional Perioperative and Short-Term Functional Outcomes. J Endourol 2011;25:1013–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Strope SA, Coelho M, Wood DP, Hollenbeck BK. Robot-assisted salvage prostatectomy: evaluation of initial patient-reported outcomes. J Endourol. 2010;24:425–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Boris RS, Bhandari A, Krane LS, Eun D, Kaul S, Peabody JO. Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial results and early report of outcomes. BJU Int. 2009;103:952–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Spiess PE, Given RW, Jones JS. Achieving the “bifecta” using salvage cryotherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer: analysis of the Cryo On-Line Data (COLD) Registry data. BJU Int. 2012;110:217–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pisters LL, Leibovici D, Blute M, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, Slezak JM et al. Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Initial Radiation Therapy: A Comparison of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy Versus Cryotherapy. J Urol 2009;182:517–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Song J, Li M, Zagaja GP, Taxy JB, Shalhav AL, Al-Ahmadie HA. Intraoperative frozen section assessment of pelvic lymph nodes during radical prostatectomy is of limited value. BJU Int. 2010;106:1463–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research for CALGB 9687 (Alliance) was supported, in part, by grants from the National Cancer Institute (CA31946) to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, Chair) and to the Alliance Statistics and Data Center (Daniel J. Sargent, Ph.D., CA33601). The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute.

The following institutions participated in this study:

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, Armando Giuliano, MD

Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, Jeffrey Crawford, MD, supported by CA47577

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, Clifford A. Hudis, MD, supported by CA77651

University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, Charles J. Ryan, MD, supported by CA60138

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, Hedy L. Kindler, MD, supported by CA41287

University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, William V. Walsh, MD, supported by CA37135

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, Thomas C. Shea, MD, supported by CA47559

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, CA59518, United States

    James L. Mohler & Ali Al-Daghmin

  2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics and Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, CA33601, United States

    Susan Halabi

  3. University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States

    Stephen T. Ryan

  4. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worchester, MA, United States

    Mitchell H. Sokoloff

  5. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, CA41287, United States

    Gary D. Steinberg

  6. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, CA33601, United States

    Ben L. Sanford

  7. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, CA77651, United States

    James A. Eastham & Michael J. Morris

  8. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, CA47577, United States

    Philip J. Walther

  9. University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, CA60138, United States

    Eric J. Small

Authors
  1. James L. Mohler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Halabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen T. Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ali Al-Daghmin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mitchell H. Sokoloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gary D. Steinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ben L. Sanford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. James A. Eastham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Philip J. Walther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michael J. Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Eric J. Small
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James L. Mohler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohler, J.L., Halabi, S., Ryan, S.T. et al. Management of recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: long-term results from CALGB 9687 (Alliance), a prospective multi-institutional salvage prostatectomy series. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22, 309–316 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0106-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0106-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links