We reviewed the current salvage methods for patients with local recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy (RT), using a search of relevant Medline/PubMed articles published from 1982 to 2008, with the following search terms: ‘radiorecurrent prostate cancer, local salvage treatment, salvage radical prostatectomy (RP), salvage cryoablation, salvage brachytherapy, salvage high‐intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)’, and permutations of the above. Only articles written in English were included. The objectives of this review were to analyse the eligibility criteria for careful selection of appropriate patients and to evaluate the oncological results and complications for each method. There are four whole‐gland re‐treatment options (salvage RP, salvage cryoablation, salvage brachytherapy, salvage HIFU) for RT failure, although others might be in development or investigations. Salvage RP has the longest follow‐up with acceptable oncological results, but it is a challenging technique with a high complication rate. Salvage cryoablation is a feasible option, especially using third‐generation technology, whereby the average biochemical disease‐free survival rate is 50–70% and there are fewer occurrences of severe complications such as recto‐urethral fistula. Salvage brachytherapy, with short‐term cancer control, is comparable to other salvage methods but depends on cumulative dosage limitation to target tissues. HIFU is a relatively recent option in the salvage setting. Both salvage brachytherapy and HIFU require more detailed studies with intermediate and long‐term follow‐up. As these are not prospective, randomized studies and the definitions of biochemical failure varied, there are limited comparisons among these different salvage methods, including efficacy. In the focal therapy salvage setting, the increased use of thermoablative methods for eligible patients might contribute to reducing complications and maintaining quality of life. The problem to effectively salvage patients with locally recurrent disease after RT is the lack of diagnostic examinations with sufficient sensitivity and specificity to detect local recurrence at an early curable stage. Therefore, a more strict definition of biochemical failure, improved imaging techniques, and accurate specimen mapping are needed as diagnostic tools. Furthermore, universal selection criteria and an integrated definition of biochemical failure for all salvage methods are required to determine which provides the best oncological efficacy and least comorbidity.

To discuss the use of renal mass biopsy (RMB) for small renal masses (SRMs), formulate technical aspects, outline potential pitfalls and provide recommendations for the practicing clinician. The meeting was conducted as an informal consensus process and no scoring system was used to measure the levels of agreement on the different topics. A moderated general discussion was used as the basis for consensus and arising issues were resolved at this point. A consensus was established and lack of agreement to topics or specific items was noted at this point. Recommended biopsy technique: at least two cores, sampling different tumour regions with ultrasonography being the preferred method of image guidance. Pathological interpretation: ‘non‐diagnostic samples’ should refer to insufficient material, inconclusive and normal renal parenchyma. For non‐diagnostic samples, a repeat biopsy is recommended. Fine‐needle aspiration may provide additional information but cannot substitute for core biopsy. Indications for RMB: biopsy is recommended in most cases except in patients with imaging or clinical characteristics indicative of pathology (syndromes, imaging characteristics) and cases whereby conservative management is not contemplated. RMB is recommended for active surveillance but not for watchful‐waiting candidates. We report the results of an international consensus meeting on the use of RMB for SRMs, defining the technique, pathological interpretation and indications.

Black race was associated with discontinuation of AS for treatment. This relationship persisted when adjusted for socioeconomic and clinical parameters.