Literature DB >> 21412757

Temporal trends and predictors of pelvic lymph node dissection in open or minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.

Andrew H Feifer1, Elena B Elkin, William T Lowrance, Brian Denton, Lindsay Jacks, David S Yee, Jonathan A Coleman, Vincent P Laudone, Peter T Scardino, James A Eastham.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is an important component of prostate cancer staging and treatment, especially for surgical patients who have high-risk tumor features. It is not clear how the shift from open radical prostatectomy (ORP) to minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has affected the use of PLND. The objectives of this study were to identify predictors of PLND and to assess the impact of surgical technique in a contemporary, population-based cohort.
METHODS: In Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data linked with Medicare claims, the authors identified men who underwent ORP or MIRP for prostate cancer during 2003 to 2007. The impact of surgical approach on PLND was evaluated, and interactions were examined between surgical procedure, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and Gleason score with the analysis controlled for patient and tumor characteristics.
RESULTS: Of 6608 men who underwent ORP or MIRP, 70% (n = 4600) underwent PLND. The use of PLND declined over time both overall and within subgroups defined by procedure type. PLND was 5 times more likely in men who underwent ORP than in men who underwent MIRP when the analysis was controlled for patient and tumor characteristics. Elevated PSA and biopsy Gleason score, but not clinical stage, were associated with a greater odds of PLND in both the ORP group and the MIRP group. However, the magnitude of the association between these factors and PLND was significantly greater for patients in the ORP group.
CONCLUSIONS: PLND was less common among men who underwent MIRP, independent of tumor risk factors. A decline in PLND rates was not fully explained by an increase in MIRP. The authors concluded that these trends may signal a surgical approach-dependent disparity in prostate cancer staging and therapy. Cancer 2011
© 2011 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21412757      PMCID: PMC3136649          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25981

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  45 in total

1.  Update: NCCN prostate cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Peter Scardino
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.908

2.  A validation of two preoperative nomograms predicting recurrence following radical prostatectomy in a cohort of European men.

Authors:  Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Ilias Cagiannos; Peter G Hammerer; Alexander Haese; Jüri Palisaar; Salvador Fernandez; Jochen Noldus; Andreas Erbersdobler; Hartwig Huland; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.498

3.  Pelvic lymphadenectomy is essential to staging accuracy in most patients with stages A-2 and B prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  W J Catalona
Journal:  Semin Urol       Date:  1983-08

4.  Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long-term results.

Authors:  Siamak Daneshmand; Marcus L Quek; John P Stein; Gary Lieskovsky; Jie Cai; Jacek Pinski; Eila C Skinner; Donald G Skinner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Assessing nodal yield, perioperative outcomes, and complications.

Authors:  Kevin C Zorn; Mark H Katz; Andrew Bernstein; Sergey A Shikanov; Charles B Brendler; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Potential for cancer related health services research using a linked Medicare-tumor registry database.

Authors:  A L Potosky; G F Riley; J D Lubitz; R M Mentnech; L G Kessler
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Marianna Zahurak; Steven Piantadosi; Johnathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the SEER-Medicare database applications and limitations.

Authors:  Peter B Bach; Edward Guadagnoli; Deborah Schrag; Nicola Schussler; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ilias Cagiannos; Pierre Karakiewicz; James A Eastham; Makato Ohori; Farhang Rabbani; Claudia Gerigk; Victor Reuter; Markus Graefen; Peter G Hammerer; Andreas Erbersdobler; Hartwig Huland; Patrick Kupelian; Eric Klein; David I Quinn; Susan M Henshall; John J Grygiel; Robert L Sutherland; Phillip D Stricker; Christopher G Morash; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  21 in total

1.  Current status of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ilija Aleksic; Tyler Luthringer; Vladimir Mouraviev; David M Albala
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-12-11

2.  Elective pelvic versus prostate bed-only salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Changhoon Song; Hyun-Cheol Kang; Jae-Sung Kim; Keun-Yong Eom; In Ah Kim; Jin-Beom Chung; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 3.621

3.  Suboptimal use of pelvic lymph node dissection: Differences in guideline adherence between robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jonas Schiffmann; Alessandro Larcher; Maxine Sun; Zhe Tian; Jérémie Berdugo; Ion Leva; Hugues Widmer; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Kevin C Zorn; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Fred Saad; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  High-risk prostate cancer-classification and therapy.

Authors:  Albert J Chang; Karen A Autio; Mack Roach; Howard I Scher
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  National trends and differences in morbidity among surgical approaches for radical prostatectomy in Germany.

Authors:  Jens Uwe Stolzenburg; Iason Kyriazis; Claus Fahlenbrach; Christian Gilfrich; Christian Günster; Elke Jeschke; Gralf Popken; Lothar Weißbach; Christoph von Zastrow; Hanna Leicht
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Pelvic lymph node dissection for patients with elevated risk of lymph node invasion during radical prostatectomy: comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures.

Authors:  Jonathan L Silberstein; Andrew J Vickers; Nicholas E Power; Raul O Parra; Jonathan A Coleman; Rodrigo Pinochet; Karim A Touijer; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy and perioperative outcomes of limited versus extended pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective study in Japan.

Authors:  Shuichi Morizane; Masashi Honda; Satoshi Fukasawa; Atsushi Komaru; Junichi Inokuchi; Masatoshi Eto; Masaki Shimbo; Kazunori Hattori; Yoshiaki Kawano; Atsushi Takenaka
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  The Role of Provider Characteristics in the Selection of Surgery or Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer and Association With Quality of Care Indicators.

Authors:  Raj Satkunasivam; Mary Lo; Mariana Stern; Inderbir S Gill; Steven Fleming; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Roger T Anderson; Trevor D Thompson; Ann S Hamilton
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.339

9.  A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons.

Authors:  Jonathan L Silberstein; Daniel Su; Leonard Glickman; Matthew Kent; Gal Keren-Paz; Andrew J Vickers; Jonathan A Coleman; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Vincent P Laudone
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Detection of Lymph Node Metastases with SERRS Nanoparticles.

Authors:  Massimiliano Spaliviero; Stefan Harmsen; Ruimin Huang; Matthew A Wall; Chrysafis Andreou; James A Eastham; Karim A Touijer; Peter T Scardino; Moritz F Kircher
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.488

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.