Table 2.
Urinary function outcomes after various salvage interventions presented as mild versus severe urinary incontinence.
| Author and Year of Publication | Functional Outcomes Sample | Incontinence Rate (General) | Mild UI ¥ | Severe UI £ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgery | ||||
| Mohler 2019 [26] | 40 (6 months) 34 (12 months) 32 (24 months) 24 (36 months) |
- | - | 88% 85% 63% 42% |
| Devos 2019 (a) | 25 | 56% | 28% | 28% |
| Seabra 2009 [27] | 42 | 72% | - | 72% |
| Ward 2005 [40] | 130 | 48% | At least 20% ** | Less than 28% ** |
| HIFU | ||||
| Hostiou 2019 [35] | 50 | - | 14% | 42% |
| Devos 2019 (b) | 27 | 22% | 11% | 11% |
| Crouzet 2017 [45] | 388 | 49% | 33% | 16% |
| Jones 2018 [31] | 100 | 47% | 18% | 29% |
| Kanthabalan 2017 [57] | 48 | 22% * | - | - |
| Shah 2016 [32] | 26 | 31% * | - | - |
| Siddiqui 2015 (a) [56] | 65 | 7.50% | 3% | 4.5% |
| Baco 2014 [33] | 48 | 25.30% | 17% | 8.3% |
| Crouzet 2012 [34] | 290 | 46% | 37% | 16.8% |
| Berge 2011 [46] | 61 | - | 44% | 16% |
| Ahmed 2012 [44] | 84 | 38% | N/A § | N/A |
| Berge 2010 [36] | 35 | 60.7% | 43.4% | 17.3% |
| Murat 2009 [42] | 167 | 49.50% | 40% | 9.5% |
| Cryotherapy | ||||
| Bomers 2020 [58] | 44 | 3.2% | - | 3.2% |
| Tan 2020 (a) ₡ [59] | 72 | 9.30% | N/A | N/A |
| Tan 2020 (b) ₡ [59] | 313 | 15.10% | N/A | N/A |
| Safavy 2019 [60] | 75 | 25.30% * | - | - |
| Siddiqui 2016 [49] | 157 | 48% | 44% | 4% |
| Li 2015 [48] | 740 | No pre-SC ADT: 33.3% * With pre-SC ADT: 23.3% * |
- | - |
| Siddiqui 2015 (b) [56] | 65 | 52% | 49% | 3% |
| Siddiqui 2015 (c) [56] | 65 | 37.50% | 31% | 6.5% |
| Li 2014 [50] | 91 | 5.50% * | - | - |
| Ahmad 2013 [47] | 283 | 12% * | - | - |
| De Castro Abreu 2013 (a) [51] | 25 | 0% * | - | - |
| De Castro Abreu 2013 (b) [51] | 25 | 13% * | - | - |
| Pisters 2008 [52] | 137 | 10.20% * | - | - |
| Ismail 2007 [37] | 100 | 13% | Less than 7% ** | At least 6% ** |
| Ng 2007 [53] | 187 | 40% + | 37% | 3% |
| Clarke 2007 [38] | 47 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Donnelly 2005 [28] | 46 | 6.50% | N/A | N/A |
| Brachytherapy | ||||
| Van Son 2020 [29] | 50 | 8% | - | 8% |
| Crook 2019 [43] | 87 | 4.6% | - | 4.6% |
| Henríquez López 2019 (a) [54] | 73 | 26.70% * | - | - |
| Henríquez López 2019 (b) [54] | 44 | 4.50% * | - | - |
| Kollmeier 2017 [55] | 98 | 11% * | - | - |
| Yamada 2014 [30] | 42 | 2.40% | - | 2.4% |
¥: mild UI was defined as any UI up to but not exceeding two pads per day, grade 1 (UI with coughing or sneezing) and 2 (UI with running or picking an object from the floor) Ingleman-Sundberg UI, grade 1 (occasional UI, no pads needed) CTCAE v4.0/v4.3, and grade 1 (occasional, no pads needed) and 2 (pads needed, not interfering with ADL) CTCAE v3.0. £: severe UI was defined as any UI exceeding two pads per day, UI requiring instrumentation or surgery, grade 3 (UI with walking) Ingleman-Sundberg UI, grade 2 (spontaneous UI, no intervention needed) and 3 (spontaneous, intervention needed) CTCAE v4.0/v4.3, and grade 3 (UI interfering with ADL) and 4 (surgery is needed) CTCAE v3.0 §: no further details on pads or grades provided. ₡: Tan (a) used focal CT, while Tan (b) used total CT *: ≥1 pad with no other specifications **: the numbers reported do not match those of our table (e.g., <3 pads and ≥3 pads); the lower limit underestimates UI and the upper limit overestimates UI, so “less than” and “at least” were added accordingly. +: “Mild to moderate” was put as (mild UI), “severe” was put as (severe UI), [n] = number of patients assessed for given outcome, UCLA-PCI = University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index.