Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 7/2017

01-07-2017 | Prostate Cancer (S Prasad, Section Editor)

Therapeutic Value of Standard Versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Authors: Michele Colicchia, Vidit Sharma, Firas Abdollah, Alberto Briganti, R. Jeffrey Karnes

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 7/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) remains a subject of debate. Here, we review the literature covering the value of extended PLND (ePLND) during RP for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) over a standard PLND, with a focus on potential therapeutic advantage. PLND may provide valuable prognostic information to high-risk PCa patients, and incorporating the common iliac and presacral nodes to ePLND templates further improves pathologic nodal staging accuracy. Although increased PLND extent is associated with increased lymphocele/lymphedema rates, it is not associated with increased venous thromboembolism rates. The therapeutic role of ePLND remains uncertain. While recent retrospective studies suggest an increased number of nodes removed within the ePLND template are associated with improved survival outcomes, such retrospective studies cannot completely adjust for the Will Rodgers phenomenon or surgeon-specific factors. Thus, the results of randomized trials are eagerly awaited in this arena.
Literature
1.
2.
Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TLJ, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
5.
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Garmo H, Stark JR, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1708–17.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Eisenberger M, Dorey FJ, Walsh PC, et al. Risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2005;294(4):433.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1117–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Van Den Bergh L, Lerut E, Haustermans K, Deroose CM, Oyen R, Isebaert S, et al. Final analysis of a prospective trial on functional imaging for nodal staging in patients with prostate cancer at high risk for lymph node involvement. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2015;33(3):109.e23–31.CrossRef
10.
Budiharto T, Joniau S, Lerut E, Van Den Bergh L, Mottaghy F, Deroose CM, et al. Prospective evaluation of 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the nodal staging of prostate cancer with a high risk of lymph node metastases. Eur Urol. 2011;60(1):125–30.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, Partin MT, Humphreys EB, Han M, et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int. 2013;111(1):22–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Fossati N, Willemse P-PM, van den Bergh RCN, Van den Broeck T, Yuan CY, Briers E, et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;
13.
Cunéo B, Marcille M. Topographie des ganglions ilio-pelviens. Bull etMemoires la Soc d’Anthropologie Paris. 1901;3:653–63.
14.
Golimbu M, Morales P, Al-Askari S, Brown J. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostatic cancer. J Urol. 1979;121(5):617–20.PubMed
15.
• Joniau S, Van Den Bergh L, Lerut E, Deroose CM, Haustermans K, Oyen R, et al. Mapping of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):450–8. Precise overview of the lymphatic drainage pattern and definition of dissemination patterns of nodal metastasis in a cohort of patients affected by intermediate high-risk PCa CrossRefPubMed
16.
Briganti A, Suardi N, Capogrosso P, Passoni N, Freschi M, Di Trapani E, et al. Lymphatic spread of nodal metastases in high-risk prostate cancer: the ascending pathway from the pelvis to the retroperitoneum. Prostate. 2012 Feb 1;72(2):186–92.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hansen J, Budäus L, Spethmann J, Schlomm T, Salomon G, Rink M, et al. Assessment of rates of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases in periprostatic fat pads in a consecutive cohort treated with retropubic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2012;80(4):877–82.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Yuh B, Wu H, Ruel N, Wilson T. Analysis of regional lymph nodes in periprostatic fat following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(4):603–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Weingärtner K, Ramaswamy A, Bi ‘itinger A, Gerharz EW, Voge D, Riedmiller H. Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol 1999;156(1):1969–1971.
20.
Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, Carter HB, Walsh PC. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1840–4.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 2002 Apr;167(4):1681–6.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: comparison of the extended and modified techniques. J Urol. 1997 Nov;158(5):1891–4.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Hatzichristodoulou G, Wagenpfeil S, Wagenpfeil G, Maurer T, Horn T, Herkommer K, et al. Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy and its effect on continence and erectile function recovery: long-term results and trifecta rates of a comparative analysis. World J Urol. 2016;34:811–20.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Yuh BE, Ruel NH, Mejia R, Novara G, Wilson TG. Standardized comparison of robot-assisted limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2013 Jul;112(1):81–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
• Kim KH, Lim SK, Kim HY, Shin TY, Lee JY, Choi YD, et al. Extended vs standard lymph node dissection in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer: a propensity-score-matching analysis. BJU Int. 2013;112(2):216–23. Retrospective comparative study of ePLND versus sPLND depicting oncological (including a propensity-score-matching analysis) and non-oncological outcomes in intermediate and high-risk PCa patients CrossRefPubMed
26.
Jung JH, Seo JW, Lim MS, Lee JW, Chung BH, Hong SJ, et al. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection including internal iliac packet should be performed during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(8):785–790.
27.
Gandaglia G, Trinh QD, Hu JC, Schiffmann J, Becker A, Roghmann F, et al. The impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on the use and extent of pelvic lymph node dissection in the “post-dissemination” period. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(9):1080–6.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Wang EH, Yu JB, Gross CP, Abouassaly R, Cherullo EE, Smaldone MC, et al. Association between surgeon and hospital characteristics and lymph node counts from radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Urology. 2015;85(4):890–5.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Suardi N, Larcher A, Haese A, Ficarra V, Govorov A, Buffi NM, et al. Indication for and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis of five European institutions. Eur Urol. 2014;66(4):635–43.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Schwerfeld-Bohr J, Kaemper M, Krege S, Heidenreich A. Prospective randomized multicenter study comparing limited vs extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in intermediate and high risk prostate cancer—first descriptive results (SEAL, AUO AP 55/09). Eur Urol Suppl. 2014;13:e747.CrossRef
31.
Hoshi S, Hayashi N, Kurota Y, Hoshi K, Muto A, Sugano O, et al. Comparison of semi-extended and standard lymph node dissection in radical prostatectomy: a single-institute experience. Mol Clin Oncol. 2015;3(5):1085–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Yang Y, Luo Y, Hou G-L, Huang Q-X, Pang J, Gao X. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy plus extended lymph node dissection in combination with immediate androgen deprivation therapy for cases of pT3-4N0-1M0 prostate cancer: a multimodal study of 8 years’ follow-up. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016;14(4):e321–7.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Gandaglia G, De Lorenzis E, Novara G, Fossati N, De Groote R, Dovey Z, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with locally-advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2016.
34.
• Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Salonia A, Nini A, et al. More extensive pelvic lymph node dissection improves survival in patients with node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67(2):212–9. Single-center retrospective study on 315 PCa patients with pathological nodal involvement, showing a potential therapeutic effect of a higher number of removed LNs during RP CrossRefPubMed
35.
Moschini M, Fossati N, Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Cucchiara V, Dell’oglio P, et al. Determinants of long-term survival of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: the role of extensive pelvic lymph node dissection. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(10):63–7.
36.
Seiler R, Studer UE, Tschan K, Bader P, Burkhard FC. Removal of limited nodal disease in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Long-term results confirm a chance for cure. J Urol. 2014;191(5):1280–5.
37.
Schiavina R, Bertaccini A, Franceschelli A, Manferrari F, Vagnoni V, Borghesi M, et al. The impact of the extent of lymph-node dissection on biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy in node-negative patients. Anticancer Res. 2010 Jun;30(6):2297–302.PubMed
38.
Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 2006 Jul;68(1):121–5.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Porter CR, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Hutterer GC, Kodama K, Gibbons RP, et al. A nomogram predicting prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2010;84(2):132–40.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, Jeldres C, Tian Z, Briganti A, et al. Lymph node count threshold for optimal pelvic lymph node staging in prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2012 Jul;19(7):645–51.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Froehner M, Wirth MP. Re: Firas Abdollah, Giorgio Gandaglia, Nazareno Suardi, et al. More extensive pelvic lymph node dissection improves survival in patients with node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015;67:212–9: extended lymph node dissection and the will Rogers phenome Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):e112.
42.
Ji J, Yuan H, Wang L, Hou J. WITHDRAWN: is the impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy in radical prostatectomy related to the disease risk? A single center prospective study. J Surg Res. 2012;178:779–84.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Therapeutic Value of Standard Versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer
Authors
Michele Colicchia
Vidit Sharma
Firas Abdollah
Alberto Briganti
R. Jeffrey Karnes
Publication date
01-07-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0696-5

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

Current Urology Reports 7/2017 Go to the issue

Prostate Cancer (S Prasad, Section Editor)

The Contemporary Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

Prostate Cancer (S Prasad, Section Editor)

The use of Hormonal Therapy to Augment Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: An Update

Prostate Cancer (S Prasad, Section Editor)

Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage Radiation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer

Prostate Cancer (S Prasad, Section Editor)

Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies

Prostate Cancer (S Prasad, Section Editor)

Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Localized or Node-Positive Prostate Cancer: Removing the Primary

Minimally Invasive Surgery (T Guzzo, Section Editor)

Tissue Preservation Techniques at the Time of Urethroplasty for Urethral Stricture Disease