Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound versus salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a comparative study of oncological, functional, and toxicity outcomes

  • Brecht Devos
  • Walid Al Hajj Obeid
  • Colin Andrianne
  • Romain Diamand
  • Alexandre Peltier
  • Wouter Everaerts
  • Hein Van Poppel
  • Roland Van Velthoven
  • Steven JoniauEmail author
Topic Paper



To compare oncological, functional, and toxicity outcomes of patients with radiation-recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy (BT) treated with salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (S-HIFU) or salvage radical prostatectomy (S-RP).


This retrospective study compared 52 patients with radiation-recurrent PCa after EBRT or BT treated with S-HIFU (n = 27) or S-RP (n = 25) between 1998 and 2016. We estimated overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) at 5 years. Incontinence after local salvage therapy (LST) was scored according to the number of pads used per day. Complications were graded according to the Clavien–Dindo classification.


Both groups were similar for pre-LST tumor features, however, no S-HIFU patients received BT and S-RP patients were younger and healthier. Median follow-up was 45 months for S-HIFU and 43 months for S-RP. No significant differences were found in estimated 5-year OS (80.9% vs. 61.9%, p = 0.24), 5-year CSS (84.0% vs. 74.0%, p = 0.36), and 5-year MFS (60.3% vs. 55.2%, p = 0.55) for S-HIFU vs. S-RP, respectively. We observed a significant difference in pad-dependent status at 12 months (22.2% vs. 56.0%, p = 0.01) and in the number of Clavien ≥ III complications [9 (7/27 patients) vs. 16 (12/25 patients), p = 0.027] in favor of S-HIFU vs. S-RP, respectively.


S-HIFU and S-RP could both be considered valuable LST options for patients with radiation-recurrent nonmetastatic PCa with sufficient life expectancy. S-RP is associated with more pad-dependent patients at 12 months.


High-intensity focused ultrasound Radical prostatectomy PSA Radiation-recurrent prostate cancer Salvage therapy Radiotherapy 


Author contributions

BD: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. WAHO: project development, data collection, and manuscript editing. CA: data collection. RD: project development. AP: project development. WE: project development. HVP: project development. RVV: project development. SJ: project development, data collection, and manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

W. Everaerts is a company consultant for Astellas, Medtronic, Bayer and Janssen; has received company speaker honoraria from Astellas and Janssen. S. Joniau is a company consultant for Astellas, Ipsen, Bayer, Sanofi, and Janssen; has received company speaker honoraria from Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, and Ipsen; has participated in trials for Astellas, Janssen, and Bayer; has received fellowship and travel grants from Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, Ipsen, and Pfizer; and has received grant and research support from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This is a retrospective study. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

345_2019_2640_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 12 kb)
345_2019_2640_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (32 kb)
Supplementary file2 (XLSX 32 kb)
345_2019_2640_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (29 kb)
Supplementary file3 (XLSX 30 kb)


  1. 1.
    Golbari NM, Katz AE (2017) Salvage therapy options for local prostate cancer recurrence after primary radiotherapy: a literature review. Curr Urol Rep 18:63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kimura M, Mouraviev V, Tsivian M, Mayes JM, Satoh T, Polascik TJ (2010) Current salvage methods for recurrent prostate cancer after failure of primary radiotherapy. BJU Int 105:191–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehdaie B, Atoria CL, Gupta A, Feifer A, Lowrance WT, Morris MJ et al (2012) Androgen deprivation and thromboembolic events in men with prostate cancer. Cancer 118:3397–3406. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bolla M, Van Tienhoven G, Warde P, Dubois JB, Mirimanoff RO, Storme G et al (2010) External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study. Lancet Oncol 11:1066–1073. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crouzet S, Blana A, Murat FJ, Pasticier G, Brown SCW, Conti GN et al (2017) Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for locally recurrent prostate cancer after failed radiation therapy: multi-institutional analysis of 418 patients. BJU Int 119:896–904. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scheltema MJ, van den Bos W, Siriwardana AR, Kalsbeek AMF, Thompson JE, Ting F et al (2017) Feasibility and safety of focal irreversible electroporation as salvage treatment for localized radiation-recurrent prostate cancer. BJU Int 120:51–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parekh A, Graham PL, Nguyen PL (2013) Cancer control and complications of salvage local therapy after failure of radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Semin Radiat Oncol 23:222–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amling CL, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, Slezak JM, Zincke H (2001) Defining prostate specific antigen progression after radical prostatectomy: what is the most appropriate cut point? J Urol 165:1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, Schellhammer P, Shipley WU, Sokol GH et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix consensus conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:965. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matei DV, Ferro M, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Renne G, Crisan N, Bottero D et al (2015) Salvage radical prostatectomy after external beam radiation therapy: a systematic review of current approaches. Urol Int 94:373–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chade DC, Eastham J, Graefen M, Hu JC, Karnes RJ, Klotz L 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 61:961. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Philippou Y, Parker RA, Volanis D, Gnanapragasam VJ (2016) Comparative oncologic and toxicity outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy versus nonsurgical therapies for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a meta-regression analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2:158–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kenney PA, Nawaf CB, Mustafa M, Wen S, Wszolek MF, Pettaway CA et al (2016) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open salvage radical prostatectomy following radiotherapy. Can J Urol 23:8271–8277Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zargar H, Lamb AD, Rocco B, Porpiglia F, Liatsikos E, Davis J et al (2017) Salvage robotic prostatectomy for radio recurrent prostate cancer: technical challenges and outcome analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol 69:26–37. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levine GN, D'Amico AV, Berger P, Clark PE, Eckel RH, Keating NL et al (2010) Androgen-deprivation therapy in prostate cancer and cardiovascular risk: a science advisory from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and American Urological Association: endorsed by the American Society for Radiation Oncology. Circulation 121:833–840. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, De Santis M, Gross T et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. part ii: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71:630–642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tran H, Kwok J, Pickles T, Tyldesley S, Black PC (2014) Underutilization of local salvage therapy after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 32:701–706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duijzentkunst DA, Peters M, van der Voort van Zyp JR, Moerland MA, van Vulpen M, (2016) Focal salvage therapy for local prostate cancer recurrences after primary radiotherapy: a comprehensive review. World J Urol 34:1521–1531. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bott SR, Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, Abdul-Rahman A, Freeman A, Emberton M (2010) The index lesion and focal therapy: an analysis of the pathological characteristics of prostate cancer. BJU Int 106:1607–1611. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kanthabalan A, Peters M, Van Vulpen M, McCartan N, Hindley RG, Emara A (2017) Focal salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound in radiorecurrent prostate cancer. BJU Int 120:246–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Golan R, Bernstein AN, McClure TD, Sedrakyan A, Patel NA, Parekh DJ et al (2017) Partial gland treatment of prostate cancer using high-intensity focused ultrasound in the primary and salvage settings: a systematic review. J Urol. 198:1000–1009. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pokala N, Huynh DL, Henderson AA, Johans C (2016) Survival outcomes in men undergoing radical prostatectomy after primary radiation treatment for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Clin Genitourin Cancer 14:218–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brecht Devos
    • 1
  • Walid Al Hajj Obeid
    • 2
    • 3
  • Colin Andrianne
    • 3
  • Romain Diamand
    • 3
  • Alexandre Peltier
    • 3
  • Wouter Everaerts
    • 4
  • Hein Van Poppel
    • 4
  • Roland Van Velthoven
    • 3
  • Steven Joniau
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.KU Leuven, Faculty of MedicineLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department of UrologySaint George Hospital University Medical CenterBeirutLebanon
  3. 3.Department of UrologyJules Bordet InstituteBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations