PURPOSE: The EAU guidelines recommend extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (ePLND) or sentinel-guided PLND (SLNE) for lymph node (LN) stag-ing in prostate cancer. However, the additional expenditure and increased morbidity of ePLND has led to a limitation of the PLND area and so to a reduced detection of metastases in many clinics. The SLNE offers the advantage of selective removal of sentinel LN. Therefore, we have compared the complications of SLNE and other different PLND techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with prostate cancer who had received an open PLND (PLND: n = 90, PLND + radical retropubic prostatectomy: n = 409) were assessed. The complications of three PLND techniques were compared: group 1 (n = 216): SLNE, group 2 (n = 117): SLNE + modified (m) PLND (fossa obturatoria- und Iliaca-externa-region), group 3 (n = 163): SLNE + ePLND (fossa obturatoria- + Iliaca-externa- + Iliaca-interna-region). The complications were evaluated with special reference to the PLND-induced morbidity (e. g., lymphoceles). RESULTS: In SLNE the total complications were low-er than in the two more extended PLND variants. The lymphatic complications (11.2 %) were significant (χ (2) = 8.616, p = 0.013) lower than in SLNE + mPLND (21.2 %) and SLNE + ePLND (22.0 %). With an increasing number of dissected LN the complication rate increased significantly. If ≥ 15 LN have been removed total and lymphatic complications increased significantly (χ (2) = 11.578, p = 0.021; χ (2) = 12.271, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: In PLND the lymphatic complications increase significantly with the number of dissected LN. The SLNE has, in spite of the dissection of LN in difficultly accessible regions (presacral, iliaca-interna-region), a low complication rate. As a method with a small number of LN to be removed, the SLNE offers a good compromise between high sensitivity and low morbidity and is therefore preferable to the more extended PLND variants. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart New York.
PURPOSE: The EAU guidelines recommend extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (ePLND) or sentinel-guided PLND (SLNE) for lymph node (LN) stag-ing in prostate cancer. However, the additional expenditure and increased morbidity of ePLND has led to a limitation of the PLND area and so to a reduced detection of metastases in many clinics. The SLNE offers the advantage of selective removal of sentinel LN. Therefore, we have compared the complications of SLNE and other different PLND techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with prostate cancer who had received an open PLND (PLND: n = 90, PLND + radical retropubic prostatectomy: n = 409) were assessed. The complications of three PLND techniques were compared: group 1 (n = 216): SLNE, group 2 (n = 117): SLNE + modified (m) PLND (fossa obturatoria- und Iliaca-externa-region), group 3 (n = 163): SLNE + ePLND (fossa obturatoria- + Iliaca-externa- + Iliaca-interna-region). The complications were evaluated with special reference to the PLND-induced morbidity (e. g., lymphoceles). RESULTS: In SLNE the total complications were low-er than in the two more extended PLND variants. The lymphatic complications (11.2 %) were significant (χ (2) = 8.616, p = 0.013) lower than in SLNE + mPLND (21.2 %) and SLNE + ePLND (22.0 %). With an increasing number of dissected LN the complication rate increased significantly. If ≥ 15 LN have been removed total and lymphatic complications increased significantly (χ (2) = 11.578, p = 0.021; χ (2) = 12.271, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: In PLND the lymphatic complications increase significantly with the number of dissected LN. The SLNE has, in spite of the dissection of LN in difficultly accessible regions (presacral, iliaca-interna-region), a low complication rate. As a method with a small number of LN to be removed, the SLNE offers a good compromise between high sensitivity and low morbidity and is therefore preferable to the more extended PLND variants. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart New York.
Authors: Frederick O Cope; Bonnie Abbruzzese; James Sanders; Wendy Metz; Kristyn Sturms; David Ralph; Michael Blue; Jane Zhang; Paige Bracci; Wiam Bshara; Spencer Behr; Toby Maurer; Kenneth Williams; Joshua Walker; Allison Beverly; Brooke Blay; Anirudh Damughatla; Mark Larsen; Courtney Mountain; Erin Neylon; Kaeli Parcel; Kapil Raghuraman; Kevin Ricks; Lucas Rose; Akhilesh Sivakumar; Nicholas Streck; Bryan Wang; Christopher Wasco; Larry S Schlesinger; Abul Azad; Murugesan V S Rajaram; Wael Jarjour; Nicholas Young; Thomas Rosol; Amifred Williams; Michael McGrath Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Alexander Winter; Thomas Kneib; Clara Wasylow; Lena Reinhardt; Rolf-Peter Henke; Svenja Engels; Holger Gerullis; Friedhelm Wawroschek Journal: J Cancer Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 4.207