OBJECTIVE: To assess whether regional lymph node dissection could improve the prognosis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We reviewed data on 258 patients who underwent cytoreductive nephrectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA, some of whom received a concurrent lymph node dissection. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. A Cox proportional hazards regression model included, age, pathological stage, lymphadenopathy, tumor size, modified Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria, site of metastatic disease and lymph node dissection. We created a logistic regression model to evaluate risk factors for node-positive disease. Survival analyses were carried out for lymph node template (hilar vs other) and number of nodes removed (0-3, 4-7 or ≥8). RESULTS: Of 258 patients, 177 (69%) underwent lymph node dissection, and positive nodes were found in 59 (33%). The 5-year overall survival was 21% for patients who underwent lymph node dissection and 31% for patients who did not. No significant difference in survival was found among patients receiving or not receiving lymph node dissection. The 5-year overall survival was 27% and 9% for negative and positive nodal status, respectively (P < 0.0005). For patients who underwent lymph node dissection, the presence of lymphadenopathy was a significant predictor of node-positive disease (odds ratio 25.0, 95% confidence interval 9.04-69.4, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Lymph node dissection carried out during cytoreductive nephrectomy is not associated with a survival benefit. Lymph node-positive disease represents a poor prognostic variable; therefore, lymph node dissection should be considered as a staging procedure for clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether regional lymph node dissection could improve the prognosis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We reviewed data on 258 patients who underwent cytoreductive nephrectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA, some of whom received a concurrent lymph node dissection. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. A Cox proportional hazards regression model included, age, pathological stage, lymphadenopathy, tumor size, modified Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria, site of metastatic disease and lymph node dissection. We created a logistic regression model to evaluate risk factors for node-positive disease. Survival analyses were carried out for lymph node template (hilar vs other) and number of nodes removed (0-3, 4-7 or ≥8). RESULTS: Of 258 patients, 177 (69%) underwent lymph node dissection, and positive nodes were found in 59 (33%). The 5-year overall survival was 21% for patients who underwent lymph node dissection and 31% for patients who did not. No significant difference in survival was found among patients receiving or not receiving lymph node dissection. The 5-year overall survival was 27% and 9% for negative and positive nodal status, respectively (P < 0.0005). For patients who underwent lymph node dissection, the presence of lymphadenopathy was a significant predictor of node-positive disease (odds ratio 25.0, 95% confidence interval 9.04-69.4, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Lymph node dissection carried out during cytoreductive nephrectomy is not associated with a survival benefit. Lymph node-positive disease represents a poor prognostic variable; therefore, lymph node dissection should be considered as a staging procedure for clinical trials.
Authors: R C Flanigan; S E Salmon; B A Blumenstein; S I Bearman; V Roy; P C McGrath; J R Caton; N Munshi; E D Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Cezary Szczylik; Stéphane Oudard; Michael Siebels; Sylvie Negrier; Christine Chevreau; Ewa Solska; Apurva A Desai; Frédéric Rolland; Tomasz Demkow; Thomas E Hutson; Martin Gore; Scott Freeman; Brian Schwartz; Minghua Shan; Ronit Simantov; Ronald M Bukowski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Terrone; S Guercio; S De Luca; M Poggio; E Castelli; C Scoffone; R Tarabuzzi; R M Scarpa; D Fontana; S Rocca Rossetti Journal: BJU Int Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Robert C Flanigan; G Mickisch; Richard Sylvester; Cathy Tangen; H Van Poppel; E David Crawford Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ross J Mason; Lori Wood; Anil Kapoor; Naveen Basappa; George Bjarnason; Stephen A Boorjian; Rodney H Breau; Ilias Cagiannos; Michael A S Jewett; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Wassim Kassouf; Christian Kollmannsberger; Aly-Khan A Lalani; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Luke T Lavallée; Stephen Pautler; Nicholas Power; Patrick Richard; Alan So; Simon Tanguay; Ricardo A Rendon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Michael A Gorin; Natasha Gupta; Max Kates; Michael H Johnson; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Oscar Rodriguez Faba; Sabine D Brookman-May; Estefania Linares; Alberto Breda; Francesca Pisano; José Daniel Subiela; Francesco Sanguedolce; Maurizio Brausi; Joan Palou Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Juan Chipollini; E Jason Abel; Charles C Peyton; David C Boulware; Jose A Karam; Vitaly Margulis; Viraj A Master; Kamran Zargar-Shoshtari; Surena F Matin; Wade J Sexton; Jay D Raman; Christopher G Wood; Philippe E Spiess Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Janine Bacic; Tao Liu; R Houston Thompson; Stephen A Boorjian; Bradley C Leibovich; Dragan Golijanin; Boris Gershman Journal: Urology Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 2.649