Literature DB >> 29427005

Multicenter evaluation of guideline adherence for pelvic lymph node dissection in patients undergoing open retropubic vs. laparoscopic or robot assisted radical prostatectomy according to the recent German S3 guideline on prostate cancer.

Angelika Borkowetz1, Johannes Bruendl2, Martin Drerup3, Jonas Herrmann4, Hendrik Isbarn5,6, Burkhard Beyer6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is recommended for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and significant risk for nodal metastases. This study aimed to assess guideline adherence regarding PLND according to the German S3 guideline as example for a national but highly used guideline on prostate cancer and to compare the rate of complications different approaches for radical prostatectomy (RP).
METHODS: Patients undergoing open (RRP), laparoscopic (LARP) or robot-assisted (RARP) RP in six centers in Germany and Austria were included. The primary endpoint was the total number of removed lymph nodes (LN) between the different surgical approaches according to recent guideline recommendations. Secondary endpoints were the number of patients undergoing a sufficient PLND, defined as a removal of at least 10 LN and associated complication rates.
RESULTS: 2634 patients undergoing RP were included (RRP: 66%, RARP/LARP: 34%). PLND was performed in 88% (RRP: 88.5%, RARP/LARP: 86.8%, p = 0.208). In intermediateor high risk PCa, PLND was performed in 97.2% (RRP: 97.7%, RARP/LARP: 96.2, p = 0.048). Of those, the mean number of LN was 19 (RRP: 19 vs. RARP/LARP: 17, p < 0.005) and sufficient PLND was observed in 84.6% of RRP compared to 77.2% of RARP/LARP (p < 0.005). Symptomatic lymphoceles requiring surgical treatment occurred more often in RRP than in RARP/LARP (4.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The general guideline adherence regarding performing PNLD and the LN yield is high, regardless of the surgical approach. As expected, lymph node yield was higher when very experienced surgeons conducted the procedure. This should be considered in patients' counseling.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adherence; Guidelines; Pelvic lymph node dissection; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29427005     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2195-9

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


  30 in total

1.  Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure?

Authors:  Pia Bader; Fiona C Burkhard; Regula Markwalder; Urs E Studer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update.

Authors:  Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Comparison of radical prostatectomy techniques: open, laparoscopic and robotic assisted.

Authors:  Rodrigo Frota; Burak Turna; Rodrigo Barros; Inderbir S Gill
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 4.  Best evidence regarding the superiority or inferiority of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  John B Eifler; Michael S Cookson
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 2.241

5.  Pelvic lymph node dissection for patients with elevated risk of lymph node invasion during radical prostatectomy: comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures.

Authors:  Jonathan L Silberstein; Andrew J Vickers; Nicholas E Power; Raul O Parra; Jonathan A Coleman; Rodrigo Pinochet; Karim A Touijer; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 6.  Extended versus Standard Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Radical Prostatectomy on Oncological and Functional Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Min Soo Choo; Myong Kim; Ja Hyeon Ku; Cheol Kwak; Hyeon Hoe Kim; Chang Wook Jeong
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Prospective evaluation of 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the nodal staging of prostate cancer with a high risk of lymph node metastases.

Authors:  Tom Budiharto; Steven Joniau; Evelyne Lerut; Laura Van den Bergh; Felix Mottaghy; Christophe M Deroose; Raymond Oyen; Filip Ameye; Kris Bogaerts; Karin Haustermans; Hendrik Van Poppel
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Alberto Briganti; Felix K-H Chun; Andrea Salonia; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Gallina; Luigi Filippo Da Pozzo; Marco Roscigno; Giuseppe Zanni; Luc Valiquette; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-08-31       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Critical assessment of the European Association of Urology guideline indications for pelvic lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Firas Abdollah; Maxine Sun; Alberto Briganti; Rodolphe Thuret; Jan Schmitges; Andrea Gallina; Nazareno Suardi; Umberto Capitanio; Andrea Salonia; Shahrokh F Shariat; Paul Perrotte; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.