Alessandro Morlacco,¹ Matteo Soligo,¹ Michele Colicchia,² Avinash Nehra,² *R. Jeffrey Karnes³

1. Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy
2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
3. Urology Department, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
*Correspondence to Karnes.R@mayo.edu

Disclosure: R. Jeffrey Karnes has received research funding from GenomeDx and is employed by the Mayo Clinic, which has a financial interest in Decipher/GenomeDx.
Received: 10.04.17 Accepted: 14.09.17
Citation: EMJ Oncol. 2017;5[1]:70-77.

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy is widely used as the primary modality of treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer. A considerable proportion of men will have adverse histopathologic features and could benefit from adjunctive treatments: mainly adjuvant or salvage radiation.

This review focusses on the still unanswered questions:

• How to manage the patient after radical prostatectomy? Which patients need further treatment and which ones will not progress if not treated?
• How to refine patients selection for further treatments? What is the role for clinical nomograms and biomarkers and which ones are validated?
• When is it wise to propose adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) instead of observation with or without salvage RT?
• What is the optimal timing for the use of salvage RT and how to choose patients for each approach?

This article discusses the evidence available in the current literature, providing a critical analysis of the
controversies of each strategy.

This article is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 License.

The post Post-Surgical Strategies for Prostate Cancer: Clinicopathologic and Genomics Criteria appeared first on European Medical Journal.