Advertisement

Therapeutic Consequences of Omitting a Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection at Radical Prostatectomy when Grade and/or Stage Increase

      ABSTRACT

      Objective

      To analyze the effect on biochemical recurrence (BCR) of omitting PLND in subsequently upgraded/upstaged patients (pNx regret). Using nomograms, patients with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer can be selected to omit a pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of a radical prostatectomy (RP). However, some patients will experience upgraded pathology and/or stage.

      Materials and Methods

      We searched a prospectively maintained single institution/multi-surgeon cohort of patients treated by RP and >5-year follow-up. From 2006-2012, 1026 (521 pNx and 505 pN0/1) eligible patients with biopsy Gleason Score ≤3+4 and cT1c-cT2 undergoing RARP were included in the study.

      Results

      Gleason upgrading from ≤3+4 to >3+4 and/or pT3-4 occurred in 17% of pNx and 32% of pN0/N1 (p<0.001). BCR occurred in 5% of the pNx, and 7% of the PLND group. Five-year BCR free survival was higher in the pNx group (94.7% vs. 91%, P = .048). BCR occurred in 3% in the non-pNx regret and 18% in the pNx regret patients. However, with propensity score matching with pNx regret and pN0/N1 patients, 5-year BCR free survival rates were similar (81% vs 77%, P = .466).

      Conclusions

      Low to favorable intermediate-risk patients who PLND was omitted and experienced upgrading or upstaging (pNx regret), have a higher predicted BCR. However, when matched to a similar cohort with pN0/N1, the BCR did not differ. Omission of a PLND does not appear to alter the rates of BCR compared to PLND inclusion.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Heidenreich A
        • Bastian PJ
        • Bellmunt J
        • et al.
        EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 124-137https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046
        • Briganti A
        • Larcher A
        • Abdollah F
        • et al.
        Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 480-487https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044
        • Joniau S
        • Van den Bergh L
        • Lerut E
        • et al.
        Mapping of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 450-458https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.057
        • Sanda MG
        • Cadeddu JA
        • Kirkby E
        • et al.
        Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options.
        J Urol. 2018; 199 (03): 683-690https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095
        • Carroll PR
        • Parsons JK
        • Andriole G
        • et al.
        NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016.
        J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016; 14: 509-519
        • Mottet N
        • Bellmunt J
        • Bolla M
        • et al.
        EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 71 (04): 618-629https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003
        • Mohler JL
        • Antonarakis ES
        • Armstrong AJ
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology.
        J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019; 17 (05): 479-505https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023
        • Altok M
        • Babaian K
        • Achim MF
        • et al.
        Surgeon-led prostate cancer lymph node staging: pathological outcomes stratified by robot-assisted dissection templates and patient selection.
        BJU Int. 2018; 122: 66-75https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14164
        • Davis JW
        • Shah JB
        • Achim M
        Robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP): a video-based illustration of technique, results, and unmet patient selection needs.
        BJU Int. 2011; 108: 993-998https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10454.x
        • Mohler J
        • Bahnson RR
        • Boston B
        • et al.
        NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer.
        J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010; 8 (Feb): 162-200
        • Chen ME
        • Johnston D
        • Reyes AO
        • Soto CP
        • Babaian RJ
        • Troncoso P
        A streamlined three-dimensional volume estimation method accurately classifies prostate tumors by volume.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2003; 27: 1291-1301https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200310000-00001
        • Garrido MM
        • Kelley AS
        • Paris J
        • et al.
        Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores.
        Health Serv Res. 2014; 49: 1701-1720https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12182
        • Weight CJ
        • Reuther AM
        • Gunn PW
        • Zippe CR
        • Dhar NB
        • Klein EA
        Limited pelvic lymph node dissection does not improve biochemical relapse-free survival at 10 years after radical prostatectomy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2008; 71: 141-145https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.08.027
        • Daimon T
        • Miyajima A
        • Maeda T
        • et al.
        Does pelvic lymph node dissection improve the biochemical relapse-free survival in low-risk prostate cancer patients treated by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy?.
        J Endourol. 2012; 26: 1199-1202https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0589
        • Modi PK
        • Bock M
        • Kim S
        • Singer EA
        • Parikh RR
        Utilization of pelvic lymph node dissection for patients with low-risk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
        Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017; 15 (12): e1001-e1006https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.05.013
        • Preisser F
        • van den Bergh RCN
        • Gandaglia G
        • et al.
        Effect of extended pelvic lymph node dissection on oncologic outcomes in patients with d'amico intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study.
        J Urol. 2020; 203 (02): 338-343https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000504
        • Ploussard G
        • Gandaglia G
        • Borgmann H
        • et al.
        Salvage lymph node dissection for nodal recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 76: 493-504https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.041