Salvage treatment for radio-recurrent prostate cancer: a review of literature with focus on recent advancements in image-guided focal salvage therapies

  • Monzer Haj-HamedEmail author
  • Vidhya Karivedu
  • Abhinav Sidana
Urology - Review


Biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer occurs in 25–33% of patients who undergo radiation therapy (RT). Unfortunately, greater than 90% of patients with radiation recurrence undergo androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), despite the detrimental side effect profile and the lack of supporting evidence for ADT use in local recurrence. In patients who experience recurrence after treatment with RT, options for treatment include salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP), salvage cryotherapy (SCT), salvage brachytherapy (SBT), and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). These salvage treatments provide recurrence-free survival in almost half of the patients with an acceptable safety profile. However, it is important to note that approximately 20–40% of radio-recurrent prostate cancers are isolated and local. Recent studies have shown salvage focal treatments to have encouraging outcomes with significantly less side effects. This article summarizes the outcomes of currently used salvage treatment options for radio-recurrent prostate cancer and focuses on recent advancements in image-guided focal salvage therapies.


Prostate cancer Focal salvage therapy Salvage prostate cancer therapy 



No funding was received for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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


  1. 1.
    Loeb S et al (2011) Can we stop prostate specific antigen testing 10 years after radical prostatectomy? J Urol 186(2):500–505Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roach M 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(4):965–974Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fakhrejahani F, Madan RA, Dahut WL (2017) Management options for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Curr Treat Opt Oncol 18(5):26Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grossfeld GD et al (2002) Predictors of secondary cancer treatment in patients receiving local therapy for prostate cancer: data from cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. J Urol 168(2):530–535Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee WR, Hanks GE, Hanlon A (1997) Increasing prostate-specific antigen profile following definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: clinical observations. J Clin Oncol 15(1):230–238Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agarwal Piyush K et al (2007) Treatment failure after primary and salvage therapy for prostate cancer. Cancer 112(2):307–314Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Amico AV et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial of radiation with or without androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 314(12):1291Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horwitz EM et al (2008) PSA doubling time predicts for the development of distant metastases for patients who fail 3DCRT or IMRT using the phoenix definition. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72(1):S135–S136Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gandaglia G et al (2018) Use of concomitant androgen deprivation therapy in patients treated with early salvage radiotherapy for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: long-term results from a large. Multi-institutional series. Eur Urol 73(4):512–518Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jackson WC et al (2016) Duration of androgen deprivation therapy influences outcomes for patients receiving radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 69(1):50–57Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zdrojowy R et al (2016) Salvage local therapy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer—where are we? Cent Eur J Urol 69(3):264–270Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hennequin C, Hannoun-Lévi JM, Rozet F (2017) Management of local relapse after prostate cancer radiotherapy: surgery or radiotherapy? Cancer/Radiothérapie 21(6–7):433–436Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mador DR et al (1985) Salvage surgery following radical radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 133(1):58–60Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chade DC et al (2011) Salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a multi-institutional collaboration. Eur Urol 60(2):205–210Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matei DV et al (2015) Salvage radical prostatectomy after external beam radiation therapy: a systematic review of current approaches. Urol Int 94(4):373–382Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sidana A et al (2010) Cryoimmunotherapy in urologic oncology. Urology 75(5):1009–1014Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bales GT et al (1995) Short-term outcomes after cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in men with recurrent prostate carcinoma following radiation therapy. Urology 46(5):676–680Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gevorgyan A et al (2018) Cryothérapie prostatique de rattrapage après échec de radiothérapie externe ou curiethérapie: morbidité et résultats oncologiques à moyen terme. Progrès en Urologie 28(5):291–301Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Artibani W et al (2017) Management of biochemical recurrence after primary curative treatment for prostate cancer: a review. Urol Int 100(3):251–262Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mouraviev V, Spiess PE, Jones JS (2012) Salvage cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer following primary radiotherapy. Eur Urol 61(6):1204–1211Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen CP et al (2013) Salvage HDR brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after previous definitive radiation therapy: 5-year outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86(2):324–329Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henríquez I et al (2014) Salvage brachytherapy in prostate local recurrence after radiation therapy: predicting factors for control and toxicity. Radiat Oncol 9(1):102Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uchida T et al (2015) Improved outcomes with advancements in high intensity focused ultrasound devices for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 193(1):103–110Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crouzet S 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(6):896–904Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    An JY et al (2017) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for active surveillance of prostate cancer. Balkan Med J 34(5):388–396Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    An JY et al (2018) Ruling out clinically significant prostate cancer with negative multi-parametric MRI. Int Urol Nephrol 50(1):7–12Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kitajima K et al (2014) Detection of recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: comparison of 11C-choline PET/CT with pelvic multiparametric MR imaging with endorectal coil. J Nucl Med 55(2):223–232Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gorny K et al (2016) MRI-Guided prostate biopsy of native and recurrent prostate cancer. Semin Intervent Radiol 33(03):196–205Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barchetti F, Panebianco V (2014) Multiparametric MRI for recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy and postradiation therapy. Biomed Res Int 2014:1–23Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Calio B et al (2018) Multiparametric MRI: an opportunity for focal therapy of. Semin Roentgenol 53(3):227–233Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Afaq A, Batura D, Bomanji J (2017) New frontiers in prostate cancer imaging: clinical utility of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography. Int Urol Nephrol 49(5):803–810Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barbosa FG et al (2019) Revisiting prostate cancer recurrence with PSMA PET: atlas of typical and atypical patterns of spread. Radiographics 39(1):186–212Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kasson M et al (2018) Imaging prostate cancer using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: past, present, and future. Semin Roentgenol 53(3):200–205Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Orczyk C et al (2017) 3D registration of mpMRI for assessment of prostate cancer focal therapy. Acad Radiol 24(12):1544–1555Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Philippou Y et al (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(2):158–171Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    de Castro Abreu AL et al (2013) Salvage focal and salvage total cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiation therapy. BJU Int 112(3):298–307Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li Y-H et al (2014) Salvage focal prostate cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: Initial results from the cryo on-line data registry. Prostate 75(1):1–7Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bomers JGR et al (2013) MR Imaging–guided focal cryoablation in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. Radiology 268(2):451–460Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maenhout M et al (2017) Focal MRI-guided salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy in patients with radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 16(6):1194–1201Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hsu CC et al (2013) Feasibility of MR imaging/MR spectroscopy-planned focal partial salvage permanent prostate implant (PPI) for localized recurrence after initial PPI for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85(2):370–377Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kanthabalan A et al (2017) Focal salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound in radiorecurrent prostate cancer. BJU Int 120(2):246–256Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ahmed HU et al (2012) Focal salvage therapy for localized prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy. Cancer 118(17):4148–4155Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Cincinnati College of MedicineCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Division of Hematology and OncologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati Cancer InstituteUniversity of Cincinnati College of MedicineCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations