Nina Natascha Harke1, Michael Godes2, Christian Wagner2, Mustapha Addali2, Bernhard Fangmeyer2, Katarina Urbanova2, Boris Hadaschik3, Jorn H Witt2. 1. Department of Urology, Urooncology and Pediatric Urology, Essen University Hospital, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. harkenina@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Gronau, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Urooncology and Pediatric Urology, Essen University Hospital, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the benefits of fluorescence-supported extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) compared to regular ePLND in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. METHODS:120 patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer were prospectively randomized (1:1): in the intervention group, indocyanine green (ICG) was injected transrectally into the prostate before docking of the robot. In both groups, ePLND was performed including additional dissection of fluorescent lymph nodes (LN) in the ICG group. RESULTS: After drop-out of two patients, 59 patients were allocated to the control (A) and intervention group (B) with a median PSA of 8,6 ng/ml. Median console time was 159 (A) vs. 168 (B) min (p = 0.20) with a longer time for ICG-ePLND: 43 (A) vs. 55 min (B) (p = 0.001). 2609 LN were found with significantly more LN after ICG-supported ePLND with a median of 25 vs. 17 LN in A (p < 0.001). Nodal metastases were detected in 6 patients in A (25 cancerous LN) vs. 9 patients in B (62 positive LN) (p = 0.40). In seven of nine patients, ICG-ePLND identified at least one cancer-positive LN (sensitivity 78%), 27 of 62 cancerous LN were fluorescent. Symptomatic lymphocele occurred in one patient in a and in three patients in b (p = 0.62). After a median follow-up of 22.9 months, PSA levels were similar. CONCLUSIONS: While ICG-ePLND seems to be beneficial for a better understanding of the lymphatic drainage and a more meticulous diagnostic approach, the sensitivity is not sufficient to recommend stand-alone ICG lymph node dissection.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the benefits of fluorescence-supported extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) compared to regular ePLND in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. METHODS: 120 patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer were prospectively randomized (1:1): in the intervention group, indocyanine green (ICG) was injected transrectally into the prostate before docking of the robot. In both groups, ePLND was performed including additional dissection of fluorescent lymph nodes (LN) in the ICG group. RESULTS: After drop-out of two patients, 59 patients were allocated to the control (A) and intervention group (B) with a median PSA of 8,6 ng/ml. Median console time was 159 (A) vs. 168 (B) min (p = 0.20) with a longer time for ICG-ePLND: 43 (A) vs. 55 min (B) (p = 0.001). 2609 LN were found with significantly more LN after ICG-supported ePLND with a median of 25 vs. 17 LN in A (p < 0.001). Nodal metastases were detected in 6 patients in A (25 cancerous LN) vs. 9 patients in B (62 positive LN) (p = 0.40). In seven of nine patients, ICG-ePLND identified at least one cancer-positive LN (sensitivity 78%), 27 of 62 cancerous LN were fluorescent. Symptomatic lymphocele occurred in one patient in a and in three patients in b (p = 0.62). After a median follow-up of 22.9 months, PSA levels were similar. CONCLUSIONS: While ICG-ePLND seems to be beneficial for a better understanding of the lymphatic drainage and a more meticulous diagnostic approach, the sensitivity is not sufficient to recommend stand-alone ICG lymph node dissection.
Authors: Alberto Briganti; Felix K-H Chun; Andrea Salonia; Giuseppe Zanni; Vincenzo Scattoni; Luc Valiquette; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-02-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Esther M K Wit; Cenk Acar; Nikolaos Grivas; Cathy Yuan; Simon Horenblas; Fredrik Liedberg; Renato A Valdes Olmos; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Nynke S van den Berg; Alexander Winter; Friedhelm Wawroschek; Stephan Hruby; Günter Janetschek; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Steven MacLennan; Thomas B Lam; Henk G van der Poel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Henk G van der Poel; Tessa Buckle; Oscar R Brouwer; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Stephan Jeschke; Avi Beri; Martin Grüll; Josef Ziegerhofer; Peter Prammer; Karl Leeb; Wolfgang Sega; Guenter Janetschek Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nikolaos Grivas; Esther M K Wit; Teele Kuusk; Gijs H KleinJan; Maarten L Donswijk; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Henk G van der Poel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gijs H KleinJan; Nynke S van den Berg; Oscar R Brouwer; Jeroen de Jong; Cenk Acar; Esther M Wit; Erik Vegt; Vincent van der Noort; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Henk G van der Poel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-08-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Firas Abdollah; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nazareno Suardi; Umberto Capitanio; Andrea Salonia; Alessandro Nini; Marco Moschini; Maxine Sun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Sharhokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Giovanni E Cacciamani; A Shakir; A Tafuri; K Gill; J Han; N Ahmadi; P A Hueber; M Gallucci; G Simone; R Campi; G Vignolini; W C Huang; J Taylor; E Becher; F W B Van Leeuwen; H G Van Der Poel; L P Velet; A K Hemal; A Breda; R Autorino; R Sotelo; M Aron; M M Desai; A L De Castro Abreu Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Osamah Hasan; Alexandra Reed; Mohammed Shahait; Raju Chelluri; David I Lee; Ryan W Dobbs Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 2.266
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: Sherif Mehralivand; Henk van der Poel; Alexander Winter; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto; Baris Turkbey Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-10
Authors: Thomas Wendler; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Nassir Navab; Matthias N van Oosterom Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 9.236