Literature DB >> 20180060

[Pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical prostatectomy. Recommendations of the German S3 guideline].

M-O Grimm1, C Thomas, M Fröhner, T Wiegel, A Heidenreich, J W Thüroff, M Wirth.   

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy is the most frequently used treatment for localized prostate cancer. In contrast to other strategies radical prostatectomy has been shown to be superior to watchful waiting in a prospective randomized trial. According to the German S3 guideline patients have to be informed about the results of this trial prior to treatment decision. The aims and quality indicators of radical prostatectomy include--as has also been defined by the German Cancer Society for certified prostate cancer centers--complete removal of the prostate with negative surgical margins (R0) and preservation of continence as well as potency. In low-risk disease (according to D'Amico criteria) pelvic lymph node dissection may be abandoned. If lymphadenectomy is performed a minimum number of ten nodes should be obtained. An extended lymphadenectomy is recommended in locally advanced disease.Radical prostatectomy is a valid treatment option in locally advanced prostate cancer. In cases with Gleason score > or = 8 or clinical stage cT3/4 magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis should be performed prior to treatment decision making. In patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (neo) adjuvant treatment should not be used (exception: adjuvant treatment for lymph node metastases). For the first time the German S3 guideline determines minimum surgery volumes aimed at quality assurance. Radical prostatectomy has to be performed under the supervision of an experienced surgeon. This includes the number of 50 prostatectomies per year and institution, 25 prostatectomies per surgeon, and an appropriate training program.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20180060     DOI: 10.1007/s00120-010-2237-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  25 in total

1.  Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome.

Authors:  John F Ward; Jeffrey M Slezak; Michael L Blute; Erik J Bergstralh; Horst Zincke
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 2.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of comparative studies.

Authors:  Rebecca Tooher; Peter Swindle; Henry Woo; John Miller; Guy Maddern
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Sentinel lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: experience with more than 1,000 patients.

Authors:  Dorothea Weckermann; Robert Dorn; M Trefz; Theodor Wagner; Friedhelm Wawroschek; Rolf Harzmann
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; Alan W Partin; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Intermediate-term potency, continence, and survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Norm D Smith; Kimberly A Roehl; William J Catalona
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era.

Authors:  David S DiMarco; Horst Zincke; Thomas J Sebo; Jeffrey Slezak; Erik J Bergstralh; Michael L Blute
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Standard versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in patients with a predicted probability of nodal metastasis greater than 1%.

Authors:  Karim Touijer; Farhang Rabbani; Javier Romero Otero; Fernando P Secin; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial.

Authors:  Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Frej Filén; Mirja Ruutu; Hans Garmo; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-08-11       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Qin Wang; Chris L Pashos; Stuart R Lipsitz; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  [Importance of radical prostatectomy for patients older than 70 years].

Authors:  C Thomas; F C Roos; J W Thüroff
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Multicenter evaluation of guideline adherence for pelvic lymph node dissection in patients undergoing open retropubic vs. laparoscopic or robot assisted radical prostatectomy according to the recent German S3 guideline on prostate cancer.

Authors:  Angelika Borkowetz; Johannes Bruendl; Martin Drerup; Jonas Herrmann; Hendrik Isbarn; Burkhard Beyer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  [Node-positive prostate cancer. Value of radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  A Heidenreich; A J Schrader
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  [Multimodal therapy of locally advanced prostate cancer].

Authors:  A Heidenreich; D Böhmer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  [Imaging of locally advanced prostate cancer : Importance of ultrasound and especially MRI].

Authors:  O Solyanik; B Schlenker; C Gratzke; B Ertl-Wagner; D A Clevert; C Stief; J Ricke; D Nörenberg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 0.639

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.