INTRODUCTION: Lymph node dissection (LND) has been advocated by oncologic surgeons to completely eradicate cancer. However, evidence for that strategy is solely based on poor quality data. Some randomized studies done outside the field of urology failed to show any benefit to LND. Our objective was to evaluate whether LND at the time of removal of prostate, kidney and urothelial carcinomas results in a survival benefit. METHODS: For that purpose, we performed a systematic literature review. RESULTS: For kidney cancer, LND might be able to cure some patients with N+ disease. In N0 patients, although a randomized trial has been completed, the value of LND remains uncertain. LND at the time of radical prostatectomy can be useful in some patients with lymph node invasion. However, studies on the impact of LND in pN0 patients are retrospective and conflictive. Extended LND has been recommended when performing a radical cystectomy based on improved outcomes observed in retrospective studies. However, these studies are limited by selection biases and results of ongoing randomized trials will specify the template and the advantages of LND when removing a bladder cancer. Recent data of large series of radical nephro-ureterectomies for upper tract urothelial carcinomas are conflicting. Some found a benefit of LND in N0 patients while others did not. CONCLUSION: The studies that support LND at the time of surgery for prostate, kidney and urothelial carcinomas have low level of evidence. This should encourage urologists to design and perform well-designed randomized trials to assess the potential survival impact of a commonly done procedure.
INTRODUCTION: Lymph node dissection (LND) has been advocated by oncologic surgeons to completely eradicate cancer. However, evidence for that strategy is solely based on poor quality data. Some randomized studies done outside the field of urology failed to show any benefit to LND. Our objective was to evaluate whether LND at the time of removal of prostate, kidney and urothelial carcinomas results in a survival benefit. METHODS: For that purpose, we performed a systematic literature review. RESULTS: For kidney cancer, LND might be able to cure some patients with N+ disease. In N0 patients, although a randomized trial has been completed, the value of LND remains uncertain. LND at the time of radical prostatectomy can be useful in some patients with lymph node invasion. However, studies on the impact of LND in pN0 patients are retrospective and conflictive. Extended LND has been recommended when performing a radical cystectomy based on improved outcomes observed in retrospective studies. However, these studies are limited by selection biases and results of ongoing randomized trials will specify the template and the advantages of LND when removing a bladder cancer. Recent data of large series of radical nephro-ureterectomies for upper tract urothelial carcinomas are conflicting. Some found a benefit of LND in N0 patients while others did not. CONCLUSION: The studies that support LND at the time of surgery for prostate, kidney and urothelial carcinomas have low level of evidence. This should encourage urologists to design and perform well-designed randomized trials to assess the potential survival impact of a commonly done procedure.
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ross J Mason; Wassim Kassouf; David G Bell; Louis Lacombe; Anil Kapoor; Niels Jacobsen; Adrian Fairey; Jonathan Izawa; Peter Black; Simon Tanguay; Joseph Chin; Alan So; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Fred Saad; Edward Matsumoto; Darrel Drachenberg; Ilias Cagiannos; Yves Fradet; Ricardo A Rendon Journal: Urology Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J J Bonenkamp; J Hermans; M Sasako; C J van de Velde; K Welvaart; I Songun; S Meyer; J T Plukker; P Van Elk; H Obertop; D J Gouma; J J van Lanschot; C W Taat; P W de Graaf; M F von Meyenfeldt; H Tilanus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-03-25 Impact factor: 91.245
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