Open Access

The role and timing of radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial. While recent trials support the oncological safety of early salvage RT (SRT) compared to adjuvant RT (ART) in selected patients, previous randomized studies demonstrated that ART might improve recurrence-free survival in patients at high risk for local recurrence based on adverse pathology. Although ART might improve survival, this approach is characterized by a risk of overtreatment in up to 40% of cases. SRT is defined as the administration of RT to the prostatic bed and to the surrounding tissues in the patient with PSA recurrence after surgery but no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The delivery of salvage therapies exclusively in men who experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) has the potential advantage of reducing the risk of side effects without theoretically compromising outcomes. However, how to select patients at risk of progression who are more likely to benefit from a more aggressive treatment after RP, the exact timing of RT after RP, and the use of hormone therapy and its duration at the time of RT are still open issues. Moreover, what the role of novel imaging techniques and genomic classifiers are in identifying the most optimal post-operative management of PCa patients treated with RP is yet to be clarified. This narrative review summarizes most relevant published data to guide a multidisciplinary team in selecting appropriate candidates for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy.

Probably, patients with de novo (synchronous) and recurrent (metachronous) oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer have different oncologic outcomes. Thus, we are challenged with different scenarios in clinical practice, where different treatment options may apply. In the last years, several prospective studies have focused on the treatment of patients with de novo oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Not only the addition of systemic therapeutic treatments, such as chemotherapy with docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, next to androgen deprivation therapy, demonstrated to improve outcomes in these patients but also local therapy of the primary has been demonstrated to improve outcomes of low-volume metastatic disease. Next to radiotherapy, also radical prostatectomy has been reported as a feasible and safe treatment option. Additional metastasis-directed therapy in de novo metastatic disease is currently examined by four trials. In the recurrent metastatic setting, less data are available, and it remains uncertain if patients can be treated in the same way as synchronous oligometastatic disease. Metastasis-directed therapy has demonstrated to prolong outcomes, while data on survival are still missing.

Background: This study aims to test the effect of the 10 most common nonurological primary cancers (skin, rectal, colon, lymphoma, leukemia, pancreas, stomach, esophagus, liver, lung) on overall mortality (OM) after secondary prostate cancer (PCa). Material and Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with 10 most common primary cancers and concomitant secondary PCa (diagnosed 2004–2016) were identified and were matched in 1:4 fashion (age, year at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, treatment type, TNM stage) with primary PCa controls. OM was compared between secondary and primary PCa patients and was stratified according to primary cancer type, as well as according to time interval between primary cancer vs. secondary PCa diagnoses. Results: We identified 24,848 secondary PCa patients (skin, n = 3,871; rectal, n = 798; colon, n = 3,665; lymphoma, n = 2,583; leukemia, n = 1,102; pancreatic, n = 118; stomach, n = 361; esophagus, n = 219; liver, n = 160; lung, n = 1,328) vs. 531,732 primary PCa patients. Secondary PCa characteristics were less favorable than those of primary PCa patients (PSA and grade), and smaller proportions of secondary PCa patients received active treatment. After 1:4 matching, all secondary PCa exhibited worse OM than primary PCa patients. Finally, subgroup analyses showed that the survival disadvantage of secondary PCa patients decreased with longer time interval since primary cancer diagnosis and subsequent secondary PCa. Conclusion: Patients with secondary PCa are diagnosed with less favorable PSA and grade. Even after matching for PCa characteristics, secondary PCa patients still exhibit worse survival. However, the survival disadvantage is attenuated, when secondary PCa diagnosis is made after longer time interval, since primary cancer diagnosis.

Purpose: To compare Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) vs. non-SCC penile cancer, since survival outcomes may differ between histological subtypes. Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004–2016), penile cancer patients of all stages were identified. Temporal trend analyses, cumulative incidence and Kaplan–Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression and Fine and Gray competing-risks regression analyses tested for CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC penile cancer patients. Results: Of 4,120 eligible penile cancer patients, 123 (3%) harbored non-SCC vs. 4,027 (97%) SCC. Of all non-SCC patients, 51 (41%) harbored melanomas, 42 (34%) basal cell carcinomas, 10 (8%) adenocarcinomas, eight (6.5%) skin appendage malignancies, six (5%) epithelial cell neoplasms, two (1.5%) neuroendocrine tumors, two (1.5%) lymphomas, two (1.5%) sarcomas. Stage at presentation differed between non-SCC vs. SCC. In temporal trend analyses, non-SCC diagnoses neither decreased nor increased over time (p > 0.05). After stratification according to localized, locally advanced, and metastatic stage, no CSM differences were observed between non-SCC vs. SCC, with 5-year survival rates of 11 vs 11% (p = 0.9) for localized, 33 vs. 37% (p = 0.4) for locally advanced, and 1-year survival rates of 37 vs. 53% (p = 0.9) for metastatic penile cancer, respectively. After propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics and additional multivariable adjustment, no CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC were observed. Conclusion: Non-SCC penile cancer is rare. Although exceptions exist, on average, non-SCC penile cancer has comparable CSM as SCC penile cancer patients, after stratification for localized, locally invasive, and metastatic disease.

Purpose: To test the effect of anatomic variants of the prostatic apex overlapping the membranous urethra (Lee type classification), as well as median urethral sphincter length (USL) in preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on the very early continence in open (ORP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) patients. Methods: In 128 consecutive patients (01/2018–12/2019), USL and the prostatic apex classified according to Lee types A–D in mpMRI prior to ORP or RARP were retrospectively analyzed. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify anatomic characteristics for very early continence rates, defined as urine loss of ≤ 1 g in the PAD-test. Results: Of 128 patients with mpMRI prior to surgery, 76 (59.4%) underwent RARP vs. 52 (40.6%) ORP. In total, median USL was 15, 15 and 10 mm in the sagittal, coronal and axial dimensions. After stratification according to very early continence in the PAD-test (≤ 1 g vs. > 1 g), continent patients had significantly more frequently Lee type D (71.4 vs. 54.4%) and C (14.3 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.03). In multivariable logistic regression models, the sagittal median USL (odds ratio [OR] 1.03) and Lee type C (OR: 7.0) and D (OR: 4.9) were independent predictors for achieving very early continence in the PAD-test. Conclusion: Patients’ individual anatomical characteristics in mpMRI prior to radical prostatectomy can be used to predict very early continence. Lee type C and D suggest being the most favorable anatomical characteristics. Moreover, longer sagittal median USL in mpMRI seems to improve very early continence rates.