Marieke van Son

71 FOCAL SALVAGE TREATMENT: A NARRATIVE REVIEW Table 1–Summary of studies on functional and oncologic outcomes of different focal salvage treatment modalities for localized radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Focal salvage treatment Study Ablation extent N Median follow-up bFFS GU/GI Toxicity QoL LDR Kunogi et al [77] Ultrafocal (145 Gy) 12 56 months 78% at 4 years No grade 3 NA Peters et al [78] Ultrafocal (144 Gy) 20 36 months 60% at 3 years 5% grade 3 GU Increase in urinary symptoms HDR Zamboglou et al [79] Ultrafocal (18 Gy) 2 6 months 100% at 6 months No grade 3 NA Maenhout et al [80] Ultrafocal (19 Gy) 17 10 months 92% at 1 year 6% grade 3 GU NA Murgic et al [81] Quadrant (27 Gy in 2 fractions) 15 36 months 61% at 3 years 7% grade 3 GU No significant change Cryotherapy de Castro Abreu et al [73] Hemi 25 31 months 54% at 5 years No incontinence, no fistula NA Kongnyuy et al [74] Hemi 65 27 months 48% at 3 years 6% incontinence NA Li et al [75] NA 91 15 months 47% at 5 years 6% incontinence, 7% retention, 3% fistula NA HIFU Kanthabalan et al [76] Ultrafocal (11%) Quadrant (55%) Hemi (34%) 150 35 months 48% at 3 years 8% bladder neck stricture, 2% fistula NA SBRT Jereczek-Fossa et al [82] Ultrafocal (30 Gy in 5 fractions) 15 10 months 22% at 2.5 years 7% grade 3 GU NA Mbeutcha et al [83] Ultrafocal (35 Gy in 5 fractions) 18 15 months 56% at 1 year No grade 3 NA Abbreviations: bFFS: biochemical failure-free survival, GU: genitourinary, GI: gastrointestinal, QoL: quality of life, LDR: low-dose-rate, HDR: high-dose- rate, HIFU: high intensity focused ultrasound, NA: not available, SBRT: stereotactic body radiation therapy. 4