Determination of adequate pelvic lymph node dissection range for Japanese males undergoing radical prostatectomy

Furubayashi,Nobuki; Negishi,Takahito; Iwai,Hidenori; Nagase,Kei; Taguchi,Kenichi; Shimokawa,Mototsugu; Nakamura,Motonobu

doi:10.3892/mco.2017.1204

Determination of adequate pelvic lymph node dissection range for Japanese males undergoing radical prostatectomy

Authors:
- Nobuki Furubayashi
- Takahito Negishi
- Hidenori Iwai
- Kei Nagase
- Kenichi Taguchi
- Mototsugu Shimokawa
- Motonobu Nakamura
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Urology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka 811‑1395, Japan, Department of Pathology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka 811‑1395, Japan, Institute for Clinical Research, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka 811‑1395, Japan
Published online on: March 28, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1204
Pages: 775-781

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study aimed to determine the adequate pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) range for Japanese males undergoing radical prostatectomy. A total of 467 Japanese patients who underwent antegrade radical prostatectomy at the National Kyushu Cancer Center (Fukuoka, Japan) were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the PLND extent: The standard (obturator + internal iliac nodes) group and the expanded (standard + additional nodes) group, which accounted for 64.5% (301/467) and 35.5% (166/467) of the patients, respectively. No differences were observed in the preoperative and postoperative characteristics of the two groups. In addition, there was no difference in PSA recurrence between the two groups. There were no differences between the standard and expanded groups in the low‑, intermediate‑ and high‑risk groups (P=0.1456, P=0.1581, P=0.2125, respectively). The median number of lymph node dissection was 13 and 19, in the standard and expanded groups respectively (P<0.0001). However, regarding the number of lymph node metastases and the rate of patients with lymph node metastasis, no significant difference was observed between the standard and expanded groups (P=0.4219 and P=0.4257, respectively). According to multivariate analysis, a significant difference in the presence of lymph node metastasis (hazard ratio 3.547; P=0.0247), but not in the PLND extent, was detected in patients with prostate specific antigen failure (P=0.0655). When expanding the dissection extent, the number of dissected lymph nodes increases, but is not associated with the number or rate of positive lymph nodes. Thus, the current dissection range is considered to be appropriate for Japanese men undergoing radical prostatectomy.

View Figures

View References

1	European Association of Urology: Guidelines on prostate cancer. http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/Accessed. October 1–2015.
2	Cookson MS: Should pelvic lymph node dissection be performed with radical prostatectomy? J Urol. 183:1284–1285. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Guidelines on prostate cancer. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#prostate/Accessed. October 1–2015.
4	D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ and Wein A: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 280:969–974. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB and Egevad LL: ISUP Grading Committee: The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 29:1228–1242. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK and Wittekind Ch: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors. 7th. Wiley Blackwell; Oxford: 2009
7	Katz S and Rosen M: MR imaging and MR spectroscopy in prostate cancer management. Radiol Clin North Am. 44:723–734. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Tempany CM and McNeil BJ: Advances in biomedical imaging. JAMA. 285:562–567. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, Graefen M, Heidenreich A, Karnes JR, Montorsi F and Studer UE: Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 55:1251–1265. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, Gallina A, Zanni G, Scattoni V, Valiquette L, Rigatti P, Montorsi F and Karakiewicz PI: Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 69:147–151. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Heidenreich A, Varga Z and Von Knobloch R: Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: High incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 167:1681–1686. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MS, Chang SS, Smith ER Jr, Wells N and Smith J Jr: Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 169:145–148. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R and Studer UE: Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol. 168:514–518. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Burkhard FC and Studer UE: The role of lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 22:198–204. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Joslyn SA and Konety BR: Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 68:121–125. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	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
17	Daneshmand S, Quek ML, Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cai J, Pinski J, Skinner EC and Skinner DG: Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long-term results. J Urol. 172:2252–2255. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Wagner M, Sokoloff M and Daneshmand S: The role of pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer-therapeutic? J Urol. 179:408–413. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Mitsuzuka K, Koie T, Narita S, Kaiho Y, Yoneyama T, Kawamura S, Tochigi T, Ohyama C, Habuchi T and Arai Y: Is pelvic lymph node dissection required at radical prostatectomy fo low-risk prostate cancer? Int J Urol. 20:1092–1096. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Perry-Keene J, Ferguson P, Samaratunga H, Nacey JN and Delahunt B: Total submission of pelvic lymphadenectomy tissues removed during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer increases lymph node yield and detection of micrometastases. Histopathology. 64:399–404. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI