Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of salvage radical prostatectomy after Tookad® Soluble focal treatment for localized prostate cancer

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate feasibility, safety, and efficacy of salvage radical prostatectomy (RP) for recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after focal treatment with TOOKAD® Soluble vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP).

Methods

Nineteen patients underwent RP after biopsy-proven PCa post-focal VTP. We reported: operation time, blood loss, transfusion, complications, urethral catheterization time, functional outcomes, and short-term oncologic outcomes.

Results

Median age was 64 years (58–70). Median PSA before VTP was 6.30 ng/ml (3.20–9.80). Median delay between VTP and RP was 17 months (8–48). Median blood loss was 400 ml (100–1,000). Median operation time was 150 min (90–210), median urethral catheterization time was 7 days (5–18), and median hospital stay was 7 days (4–21). There was no perioperative mortality. Three patients had related per-operative complications: one pelvic hematoma (150 cc) (Clavien IIIa), one per-operative transfusion (900 cc hemorrhage) (Clavien II), and one superficial wound infection (Clavien I). After a median follow-up of 10 months (1–46), 13 were completely continent (68 %), five needed ≤1 pad/day, and one needed 3 pads/day (Clavien I). Severe erectile dysfunction was observed before and after RP (respectively 8 and 18). Ten patients regained potency with appropriate treatment. Median postoperative PSA was 0.02 ng/ml (<0.01–0.38) and remained undetectable for 16 patients (84 %). Nine patients had positive margins and six underwent complementary radiotherapy. Positive margins were significantly associated with bilateral VTP [risk ratio = 4.3, 95 % confidence interval (1.6–11.7), p = 0.003].

Conclusion

Salvage RP after VTP treatment was feasible, safe, and efficient to treat most of the locally recurrent PCa. Short-term oncologic and functional outcomes were promising, but further studies are required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ferlay JS-FE, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F (2012) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013:1374–1403

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al (2008) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 58:71–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J et al (2008) Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 20(358):1250–1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C et al (2002) Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol 167:1664–1669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moore CM, Pendse D, Emberton M (2009) Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer–a review of current status and future promise. Nat Clin Pract Urol 6:18–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Azzouzi AR, Barret E, Moore CM et al (2013) TOOKAD((R)) Soluble vascular-targeted photodynamic (VTP) therapy: determination of optimal treatment conditions and assessment of effects in patients with localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 112:766–774

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eymerit-Morin C, Zidane M, Lebdai S, Triau S, Azzouzi AR, Rousselet MC (2013) Histopathology of prostate tissue after vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy for localized prostate cancer. Virchows Arch 463(4):547–552

  8. Moore CM, Azzouzi AR, Barret E et al (2014) Determination of optimal drug dose and light dose index to achieve minimally invasive focal ablation of localized prostate cancer using WST11-Vascular Targeted Photodynamic (VTP) therapy. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/bju.12816

  9. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137

  10. Thomas C, Jones J, Jager W, Hampel C, Thuroff JW, Gillitzer R (2010) Incidence, clinical symptoms and management of rectourethral fistulas after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 183:608–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Salomon L, Azria D, Bastide C et al (2010) Recommendations Onco-Urology 2010: prostate cancer. Prog Urol 20(Suppl 4):S217–S251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W et al (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Leonardo C, Franco G, De Nunzio C et al (2012) Salvage laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following high-intensity focused ultrasound for treatment of prostate cancer. Urology 80:130–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gotto GT, Yunis LH, Vora K, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Rabbani F (2010) Impact of prior prostate radiation on complications after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 184:136–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lawrentschuk N, Finelli A, Van der Kwast TH et al (2011) Salvage radical prostatectomy following primary high intensity focused ultrasound for treatment of prostate cancer. J Urol 185:862–868

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stolzenburg JU, Bynens B, Do M, Rabenalt R, Katsakiori PF, Liatsikos E (2007) Salvage laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy after failed high-intensity focused ultrasound and radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Urology 70:956–960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chade DC, Eastham J, Graefen M 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 61:961–971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Borboroglu PG, Sands JP, Roberts JL, Amling CL (2000) Risk factors for vesicourethral anastomotic stricture after radical prostatectomy. Urology 56:96–100

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kostakopoulos A, Argiropoulos V, Protogerou V, Tekerlekis P, Melekos M (2004) Vesicourethral anastomotic strictures after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the experience of a single institution. Urol Int 72:17–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van den Ouden D, Hop WC, Schroder FH (1998) Progression in and survival of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (T3) treated with radical prostatectomy as monotherapy. J Urol 160:1392–1397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Poppel H, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L et al (2006) Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer: results of a feasibility study (EORTC 30001). Eur J Cancer 42:1062–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Loeb S, Smith ND, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ (2007) Intermediate-term potency, continence, and survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 69:1170–1175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Pr Guy, Pr Bouchot, Dr. Barré, Dr. Navara, and Dr. Mandron for their collaboration.

Conflict of interest

Pr Azzouzi is investigator and proctor for Steba Biotech. Pr Villers is lecturer for Steba Biotech. All other authors have no conflict of interest related to this study.

Ethical standard

Ethical and regulatory approvals were sought and obtained from the relevant national and local authorities.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, CHU Angers, 4 rue Larrey, 49933, Angers Cedex 9, France

    Souhil Lebdai, Cosmina Nedelcu, Pierre Bigot & Abdel-Rahmène Azzouzi

  2. University Hospital of Lille, Lille, France

    Arnaud Villers

  3. Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), Paris, France

    Eric Barret

Authors
  1. Souhil Lebdai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnaud Villers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Barret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cosmina Nedelcu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pierre Bigot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abdel-Rahmène Azzouzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Souhil Lebdai.

Additional information

Trial registration: PCM201 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00707356), PCM203 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00975429), and PCM301 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01310894).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lebdai, S., Villers, A., Barret, E. et al. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of salvage radical prostatectomy after Tookad® Soluble focal treatment for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 33, 965–971 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1493-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1493-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation