Henk G van der Poel1, Esther M Wit1, Cenk Acar2, Nynke S van den Berg3, Fijs W B van Leeuwen3, Renato A Valdes Olmos3, Alexander Winter4, Friedhelm Wawroschek4, Fredrik Liedberg5,6, Steven Maclennan7, Thomas Lam7. 1. Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Urology, Eryaman Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Leiden Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Klinikum Oldenburg, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Hospital for Urology, Oldenburg, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. 6. Department of Translational Medicine Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 7. Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the evidence and knowledge gaps in sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in prostate cancer through a consensus panel of experts. METHODS: A two-round Delphi survey among experts was followed by a consensus panel meeting of 16 experts in February 2016. Agreement voting was performed using the research and development project/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology on 150 statements in nine domains. The disagreement index based on the interpercentile range, adjusted for symmetry score, was used to assess consensus and non-consensus among panel members. RESULTS: Consensus was obtained on 91 of 150 statements (61%). The main outcomes were: (1) the results from an extended lymph node dissection (eLND) are still considered the 'gold standard', and sentinel node (SN) detection should be combined with eLND, at least in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer; (2) the role of SN detection in low-risk prostate cancer is unclear; and (3) future studies should contain oncological endpoints as number of positive nodes outside the eLND template, false-negative and false-positive SN procedures, and recurrence-free survival. A high rate of consensus was obtained regarding outcome measures of future clinical trials on SNB (89%). Consensus on tracer technology was only obtained in 47% of statements, reflecting a need for further research and standardization in this area. The low-level evidence in the available literature and the composition of mainly SNB users in the panel constitute the major limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on a majority of elementary statements on SN detection in prostate cancer was obtained.; therefore, the results from this consensus report will provide a basis for the design of further studies in the field. A group of experts identified evidence and knowledge gaps on SN detection in prostate cancer and its application in daily practice. Information from the consensus statements can be used to direct further studies.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the evidence and knowledge gaps in sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in prostate cancer through a consensus panel of experts. METHODS: A two-round Delphi survey among experts was followed by a consensus panel meeting of 16 experts in February 2016. Agreement voting was performed using the research and development project/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology on 150 statements in nine domains. The disagreement index based on the interpercentile range, adjusted for symmetry score, was used to assess consensus and non-consensus among panel members. RESULTS: Consensus was obtained on 91 of 150 statements (61%). The main outcomes were: (1) the results from an extended lymph node dissection (eLND) are still considered the 'gold standard', and sentinel node (SN) detection should be combined with eLND, at least in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer; (2) the role of SN detection in low-risk prostate cancer is unclear; and (3) future studies should contain oncological endpoints as number of positive nodes outside the eLND template, false-negative and false-positive SN procedures, and recurrence-free survival. A high rate of consensus was obtained regarding outcome measures of future clinical trials on SNB (89%). Consensus on tracer technology was only obtained in 47% of statements, reflecting a need for further research and standardization in this area. The low-level evidence in the available literature and the composition of mainly SNB users in the panel constitute the major limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on a majority of elementary statements on SN detection in prostate cancer was obtained.; therefore, the results from this consensus report will provide a basis for the design of further studies in the field. A group of experts identified evidence and knowledge gaps on SN detection in prostate cancer and its application in daily practice. Information from the consensus statements can be used to direct further studies.
Authors: Elio Mazzone; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Nikos Grivas; Esther Wit; Maarten Donswijk; Alberto Briganti; Fijs Van Leeuwen; Henk van der Poel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 10.057
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
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Henk van der Poel; Alexander Winter; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto; Baris Turkbey Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-10