Comparison of semi‑extended and standard lymph node dissection in radical prostatectomy: A single‑institute experience
- Authors:
- Senji Hoshi
- Natuho Hayashi
- Yuuta Kurota
- Kiyotsugu Hoshi
- Akinori Muto
- Osamu Sugano
- Kenji Numahata
- Vladimir Bilim
- Isoji Sasagawa
- Shoichiro Ohta
View Affiliations
Affiliations: Department of Urology, Yamagata Prefectural Central Hospital, Yamagata, Yamagata 990‑2292, Japan, Department of Urology, Yamagata Tokushukai Hospital, Yamagata, Yamagata 990‑0834, Japan, Department of Urology, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata, Niigata 951‑8566, Japan, Clinical Pathophysiology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Science, Josai University, Sakado, Saitama 350‑0295, Japan
- Published online on: July 8, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2015.601
-
Pages:
1085-1087
Metrics: Total
Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
This article is mentioned in:
Abstract
Standard lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer is limited to the obturator lymph nodes (LNs), although the internal and external iliac LNs represent the primary landing zone for prostatic lymphatic drainage. We performed anatomically semi‑extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) to assess the incidence of LN metastasis in cases of clinically localized prostate cancer. A total of 730 consecutive patients underwent radical prostatectomy with either semi‑extended PLND, comprising 6 selective fields, namely the external iliac, internal iliac and obturator LNs bilaterally, or standard LND (obturator LNs alone). A total of 131 patients undergoing semi‑extended PLND were compared with 599 patients undergoing standard LND. The patients were stratified into high‑risk [prostate‑specific antigen (PSA)>20 ng̸ml, Gleason score (GS)≥8], intermediate‑risk (PSA 10-20 ng̸ml, GS=4+3) and low‑risk (PSA<10 ng̸ml, GS≤3+4) subgroups. Following semi‑extended LND, positive LNs were detected in 12/61 (20%) of the high‑risk, 1/30 (3%) of the intermediate‑risk and 0/40 (0%) of the low‑risk cases. Following standard LND, positive LNs were detected in 13/182 (7%) of the high‑risk, 1/164 (0.6%) of the intermediate‑risk and 0/253 (0%) of the low‑risk cases. In high‑risk patients, the detection rate of LN metastasis was significantly higher following extended LND compared with standard LND (P<0.01). In 9 of 13 patients (69%), metastases were identified in the internal and external iliac regions, despite negative obturator LNs. There were no significant differences regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications or blood loss in the two groups. There was no lymphocele formation in patients undergoing either standard or semi‑extended LND. Extended pelvic LND (PLND) is associated with a high rate of LN metastasis detection outside the fields of standard LND in cases with clinically localized prostate cancer. Therefore, LND including the internal and external iliac LNs should be performed in all patients with high‑risk prostate cancer; however, in the low‑risk group, PLND may be omitted.
View References
|
1
|
Walsh PC, Partin AW and Epstein JI: Cancer
control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic
prostatectomy: Results at 10 years. J Urol. 152:1831–1836.
1994.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
2
|
Catalona WJ and Smith DS: Cancer
recurrence and survival rates after anatomic radical retropubic
prostatectomy for prostate cancer: Intermediate-term results. J
Urol. 160:2428–2434. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
3
|
Gervasi LA, Mata J, Easley JD, et al:
Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate
cancer. J Urol. 142:332–336. 1989.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
4
|
Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM,
Kattan MW and Scardino PT: Cancer control with radical
prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol.
167:528–534. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
5
|
Miyake H, Fujimoto H, Komiyama M and
Fujisawa M: Development of ‘extended radical retropubic
prostatectomy’: A surgical technique for improving margin positive
rates in prostate cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 36:281–286. 2010.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
6
|
Withrow DR, DeGroot JM, Siemens DR and
Groome PA: Therapeutic value of lymph node dissection at radical
prostatectomy: A population-based case-cohort study. BJU Int.
108:209–216. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
7
|
Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN,
Fleischmann A and Studer UE: Good outcome for patients with few
lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur
Urol. 54:344–352. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
8
|
Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R and
Studer UE: Disease progression and survival of patients with
positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance
of cure? J Urol. 169:849–854. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
9
|
Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, et al:
European Association of Urology: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer.
Eur Urol. 53:68–80. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
10
|
Zincke H: Extended experience with
surgical treatment of stage D1 adenocarcinoma of prostate.
Significant influences of immediate adjuvant hormonal treatment
(orchiectomy) on outcome. Urology. 33 (Supp 1):S27–S36. 1989.
View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
11
|
Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MS, et al:
Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph
node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate
cancer. J Urol. 169:145–147; discussion 147–148. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
12
|
Kroepfl D, Loewen H, Roggenbuck U, Musch M
and Klevecka V: Disease progression and survival in patients with
prostate carcinoma and positive lymph nodes after radical
retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 97:985–991. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
13
|
Weingärtner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A,
Gerharz EW, Vöge D and Riedmiller H: Anatomical basis for pelvic
lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: Results of an autopsy study and
implications for the clinic. J Urol. 156:1969–1971. 1996.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
14
|
Steinberg GD, Epstein JI, Piantadosi S and
Walsh PC: Management of stage D1 adenocarcinoma of the prostate:
The Johns Hopkins experience 1974 to 1987. J Urol. 144:1425–1432.
1990.PubMed/NCBI
|
