Literature DB >> 22875170

Differences in histopathological evaluation of standard lymph node dissections result in differences in nodal count but not in survival.

L S Mertens1, R P Meijer, E van Werkhoven, A Bex, H G van der Poel, B W van Rhijn, W Meinhardt, S Horenblas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyse whether the reported differences in nodal yield at pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) for bladder cancer, between two hospitals, are reflected in the survival rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed follow-up data of all 174 patients (mean age: 62.7, median follow-up: 3 years) who underwent PLND between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2009 at two different hospitals. PLND was performed according to a standardized template by the same urologists for comparable bladder cancer patients. Mean number of reported lymph nodes was 16 at hospital A versus 28 at hospital B. We compared the overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) between both cohorts and performed a multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: The cumulative probability for 2-year OS, DSS and RFS for hospital A are 61, 64 and 54 %, versus 58, 58 and 53 % for hospital B, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves did not reveal statistically significant differences between both groups (OS: p log-rank = 0.75, DSS: p log-rank = 0.56, and RFS: p log-rank = 0.80). Also after adjustment for pT stage and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, survival was not significantly different between hospital A and hospital B.
CONCLUSION: Despite differences in lymph node yield in PLND specimens, this study reveals no significant differences in survival outcomes between both hospitals. Standardized histopathological methods should be agreed upon by pathologists before integrating nodal yield and subsequent lymph node density as indicators of the quality of surgery and as prognostic factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22875170     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-012-0916-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  22 in total

1.  Impact of separate versus en bloc pelvic lymph node dissection on the number of lymph nodes retrieved in cystectomy specimens.

Authors:  B H Bochner; H W Herr; V E Reuter
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Incidental findings in pelvic lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  A M Winstanley; A Sandison; S R J Bott; A Dogan; M C Parkinson
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Standard lymph node dissection for bladder cancer: significant variability in the number of reported lymph nodes.

Authors:  R P Meijer; R P P Meijer; C J M Nunnink; A E Wassenaar; A Bex; H G van der Poel; B W van Rhijn; W Meinhardt; S Horenblas
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Evaluation of the relevance of lymph node density in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical cystectomy.

Authors:  Wassim Kassouf; Dan Leibovici; Mark F Munsell; Colin P Dinney; H Barton Grossman; Ashish M Kamat
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Guidelines for the macroscopic processing of radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2008-03-06       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Lymph node dissection technique is more important than lymph node count in identifying nodal metastases in radical cystectomy patients: a comparative mapping study.

Authors:  Ryan P Dorin; Siamak Daneshmand; Manuel S Eisenberg; Shahin Chandrasoma; Jie Cai; Gus Miranda; Peter W Nichols; Donald G Skinner; Eila C Skinner
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Lymph node density affects cancer-specific survival in patients with lymph node-positive urothelial bladder cancer following radical cystectomy.

Authors:  Matthias May; Edwin Herrmann; Christian Bolenz; Arne Tiemann; Sabine Brookman-May; Hans-Martin Fritsche; Maximilian Burger; Alexander Buchner; Christian Gratzke; Christian Wülfing; Lutz Trojan; Jörg Ellinger; Derya Tilki; Christian Gilfrich; Thomas Höfner; Jan Roigas; Mario Zacharias; Sven Gunia; Wolf F Wieland; Markus Hohenfellner; Maurice S Michel; Axel Haferkamp; Stefan C Müller; Christian G Stief; Patrick J Bastian
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Standardization of radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for bladder cancer: a collaborative group report.

Authors:  Harry Herr; Cheryl Lee; Sam Chang; Seth Lerner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Risk factors for patients with pelvic lymph node metastases following radical cystectomy with en bloc pelvic lymphadenectomy: concept of lymph node density.

Authors:  John P Stein; Jie Cai; Susan Groshen; Donald G Skinner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  Handling and pathology reporting of specimens with carcinoma of the urinary bladder, ureter, and renal pelvis.

Authors:  Antonio Lopez-Beltran; PierFrancesco Bassi; Michele Pavone-Macaluso; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  2 in total

1.  Utilization of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Parth K Modi; Megan Bock; Sinae Kim; Eric A Singer; Rahul R Parikh
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 2.872

2.  Validation of the prognostic value of lymph node ratio in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma: a population-based study.

Authors:  Yao Zhu; Cheng-Yuan Gu; Ding-Wei Ye
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 2.370

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.