Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah1, Lars Budäus2, Emanuele Zaffuto3, Raisa S Pompe4, Marco Bandini3, Alberto Briganti5, Francesco Montorsi5, Jonas Schiffmann6, Shahrokh F Shariat7, Margit Fisch8, Felix Chun8, Hartwig Huland2, Markus Graefen2, Pierre I Karakiewicz9. 1. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada; Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: S.Bannurah@googlemail.com. 2. Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada; Department of Urology Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 4. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada; Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Urology Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany. 7. Department of Urology Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 8. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 9. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada; Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess adherence rates to pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) PLND guideline (2% or higher risk) and D'Amico lymph node invasion (LNI) risk stratification (intermediate/high risk) in contemporary North American patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We relied on 49,358 patients treated with RP and PLND (2010-2013) in SEER database. Adherence rates were quantified and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression analyses tested for independent predictors. RESULTS: According to NCCN PLND guideline and D'Amico LNI classification, PLND was recommended in 63.3% and 64.9% of patients, respectively. Corresponding adherence rates were 68.8% and 69.1%. Adherence rates improved from 67.3% to 71.6% and from 67.6% to 72.0%, respectively, over time. In MVA, more advanced clinical stage, higher biopsy Gleason score and higher number of positive biopsy cores predicted PLNDs that were performed below NCCN LNI nomogram risk threshold. Conversely, lower clinical stage, lower PSA and lower biopsy Gleason score predicted PLND omission in individuals with risk level above NCCN LNI nomogram risk threshold. MVA results for D'Amico classification were virtually identical. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to NCCN PLND guideline and D'Amico LNI classification for purpose of PLND is suboptimal in SEER population-based patients treated with RP. However, adherence rates have improved over time. Patients, who did not undergo PLND despite elevated LNI risk, had more favorable PCa characteristics than the average. Conversely, patients, who underwent PLND despite low-risk, had worse PCa characteristics than the average.
PURPOSE: To assess adherence rates to pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) PLND guideline (2% or higher risk) and D'Amico lymph node invasion (LNI) risk stratification (intermediate/high risk) in contemporary North American patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We relied on 49,358 patients treated with RP and PLND (2010-2013) in SEER database. Adherence rates were quantified and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression analyses tested for independent predictors. RESULTS: According to NCCN PLND guideline and D'Amico LNI classification, PLND was recommended in 63.3% and 64.9% of patients, respectively. Corresponding adherence rates were 68.8% and 69.1%. Adherence rates improved from 67.3% to 71.6% and from 67.6% to 72.0%, respectively, over time. In MVA, more advanced clinical stage, higher biopsy Gleason score and higher number of positive biopsy cores predicted PLNDs that were performed below NCCN LNI nomogram risk threshold. Conversely, lower clinical stage, lower PSA and lower biopsy Gleason score predicted PLND omission in individuals with risk level above NCCN LNI nomogram risk threshold. MVA results for D'Amico classification were virtually identical. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to NCCN PLND guideline and D'Amico LNI classification for purpose of PLND is suboptimal in SEER population-based patients treated with RP. However, adherence rates have improved over time. Patients, who did not undergo PLND despite elevated LNI risk, had more favorable PCa characteristics than the average. Conversely, patients, who underwent PLND despite low-risk, had worse PCa characteristics than the average.
Authors: Sarah R Kaslow; Zhongyang Ma; Leena Hani; Katherine Prendergast; Gerardo Vitiello; Ann Y Lee; Russell S Berman; Judith D Goldberg; Camilo Correa-Gallego Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 2.885
Authors: Marco Bandini; Michele Marchioni; Felix Preisser; Emanuele Zaffuto; Zhe Tian; Derya Tilki; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Fred Saad; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Changhoon Song; Sang Jun Byun; Young Seok Kim; Hanjong Ahn; Seok-Soo Byun; Choung-Soo Kim; Sang Eun Lee; Jae-Sung Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 3.240