| Literature DB >> 30705885 |
Andreas Hiester1, Alessandro Nini1, Anna Fingerhut1, Robert Große Siemer1, Christian Winter1, Peter Albers1, Achim Lusch1.
Abstract
Background: Post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-RPLND) plays a crucial role in treatment of metastatic non-seminomatous germ cell cancer. Objective: To evaluate the functional outcome regarding the preservation of ejaculatory function comparing a bilateral vs. unilateral template resection in PC-RPLND patients. In addition, oncological safety and perioperative complications of the unilateral template resection was compared to the full bilateral one. Design/Setting/Participants: Between 2003 and 2018, 504 RPLNDs have been performed in 434 patients. The database of consecutive patients was queried to identify 171 patients with PC-RPLND after 1st line chemotherapy for a non-seminoma with or without bilateral template resection. Re-Do's, late relapse, salvage patients, and thoraco-abdominal approaches were excluded. Indication for a template resection was a unilateral residual mass mainly <5 cm as published (1). Outcome, Measurement, and Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics were used to report preoperative features, postoperative outcomes and patterns of recurrence, on the overall population and after stratification for the type of resection (bilateral vs. unilateral). Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to describe recurrence- and cancer-specific mortality-free survival rates at different time points. Results and Limitations: Overall, 90 and 81 patients underwent unilateral and bilateral radical resection, respectively. Median size of residual mass was 7 cm for bilateral and 4 cm for unilateral template resection. Clinical stage II and III were present in 31 and 69% of patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 14.5 months (IQR 3.3-37.6). The 1- and 2-year recurrence-free survival rates were 91 and 91%, and 77 and 72% for patients treated with unilateral template and bilateral resection, respectively (p = 0.0078). Median time to recurrence was 9.5 and 9 months in template and bilateral resection group, respectively. Adjunctive procedures were performed in 56 patients (33%) and were significantly more frequent in the bilateral resection group (43 vs. 23%, p = 0.006). The overall high-grade complication rate (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) was 6, 3, and 9% in unilateral template and bilateral resection group, respectively (p = 0.6). The rate of preservation of antegrade ejaculation was significantly higher in the unilateral group. Conclusions: Antegrade ejaculation in patients undergoing unilateral template resection with a residual mass <5 cm can be preserved at a much higher rate. Moreover, this surgical procedure is oncologically safe in terms of mid-term recurrence and CSM-free survival rates. This data undermines the growing evidence of limited PC-RPLND being justifiable in strictly unilateral residual mass <5 cm. This data has to be confirmed with a longer follow-up regarding in-field and retroperitoneal recurrences.Entities:
Keywords: bilateral and template resection; chemotherapy; germ cell cancer; non-seminoma; retroperitoneal surgery
Year: 2019 PMID: 30705885 PMCID: PMC6345078 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1Graphical description of anatomical boundaries of right and left template PC-RPLND.
Descriptive statistics on the overall population and after stratification according to type of resection.
| Median age, yr (IQR) | 31 (24–41) | 31 (24–40) | 32 (24–42) | 0.5 |
| Median diameter, cm (IQR) | 5 (3–8) | 4 (2.5–6) | 7 (4–10) | <0.001 |
| Median AFP before PC-RPLND, μg/l (IQR) | 3.3 (2.3–5.8) | 3.1 (2.2–4.8) | 4.4 (2.4–9.3) | 0.02 |
| Median ßHCG before PC-RPLND, IU/l (IQR) | 0.1 (0.1–0.9) | 0.15 (0.1–0.4) | 0.1 (0.1–2.7) | 0.004 |
| Good prognosis | 54 (32%) | 36 (40%) | 18 (22%) | 0.01 |
| Intermediate prognosis | 53 (31%) | 29 (32%) | 24 (30%) | 0.7 |
| Poor prognosis | 64 (37%) | 25 (28%) | 39 (48%) | 0.006 |
| I | 14 (8%) | 9 (10%) | 5 (6%) | 0.4 |
| II | 44 (26%) | 29 (32%) | 15 (18%) | 0.04 |
| III | 113 (66%) | 52 (58%) | 61 (73%) | 0.02 |
| II | 53 (31%) | 36 (40%) | 17 (21%) | 0.007 |
| III | 118 (69%) | 54 (60%) | 64 (79%) | 0.007 |
Descriptive statistics of the type of chemotherapy administered before surgery on the overall population and after stratification for the type of PC-RPLND.
| PEB | 122 (71%) | 66 (73%) | 56 (69%) | 0.5 |
| PE | 7 (4%) | 6 (7%) | 1 (1%) | 0.1 |
| PEI | 39 (23%) | 17 (19%) | 22 (27%) | 0.2 |
| HD-CT (HD-PEI) | 3 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 2 (2%) | 0.9 |
Descriptive statistics of perioperative Outcome and complications on the overall population and after stratification for the type of PC-RPLND.
| Median operative time, min (IQR) | 210 (150–240) | 180 (150–210) | 240 (180–329) | <0.001 |
| Median intraoperative blood loss, ml (IQR) | 500 (200–1500) | 300 (100–700) | 1400 (400–2450) | <0.001 |
| Median length of hospital stay, days (IQR) | 9 (8–10) | 8 (7–10) | 9 (8–12) | 0.01 |
| Adjunctive surgery, n (%) | 56 (33%) | 21 (23%) | 35 (43%) | 0.006 |
| 0 | 94 (55%) | 62 (69%) | 32 (39%) | <0.001 |
| I | 19 (11%) | 11 (12%) | 8 (10%) | 0.6 |
| II | 48 (28%) | 14 (16%) | 34 (42%) | <0.001 |
| IIIa | 5 (3%) | 2 (2%) | 3 (4%) | 0.9 |
| IIIb | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – |
| IVa | 4 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 3 (4%) | 0.5 |
| IVb | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – |
| V | 1 (1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1%) | 0.9 |
Descriptive statistics of the type of adjunctive surgery on the overall population and after stratification for the type of PC-RPLND.
| Aortic replacement | 4 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (5%) | 0.1 |
| Cava prothesis | 3 (1.8%) | 1 (1%) | 2 (2.5%) | 0.9 |
| Cavotomy | 14 (8.2%) | 9 (10%) | 5 (6%) | 0.4 |
| Bone resection | 10 (5.8%) | 5 (6%) | 5 (6%) | 0.9 |
| Liver resection | 19 (11.1%) | 7 (8%) | 11 (14%) | 0.2 |
| Nephrectomy | 13 (7.6%) | 3 (3%) | 10 (12%) | 0.03 |
Descriptive statistics on the PC-RPLND histologic report on the overall population and after stratification for the type of resection.
| Necrosis | 69 (40%) | 38 (42%) | 31 (38%) | 0.6 |
| Teratoma | 87 (51%) | 44 (49%) | 43 (53%) | 0.6 |
| Vital tumor | 15 (9%) | 8 (9%) | 7 (9%) | 0.9 |
Recurrences after PC-RPLND.
| 1. | Bilateral | Lung |
| 2. | Bilateral | Liver/marker |
| 3. | Bilateral | Marker |
| 4. | Bilateral | Marker |
| 6. | Template | Lung |
| 7. | Template | Medistinal |
| 8. | Bilateral | Retroperitoneal (outfield) |
| 10. | Template | Retroperitoneal (opposite side) |
| 11. | Template | Lung/skull |
| 12. | Bilateral | Marker |
| 13. | Bilateral | Lung |
| 14. | Bilateral | Lung |
| 15. | Bilateral | Mediastinal/Retrocrural |
| 16. | Bilateral | Neck |
| 18. | Bilateral | Retrocrural/Mediastinal |
| 19. | Bilateral | Lung |
| 20 | Bilateral | Retrocrural |
| 21. | Bilateral | Lung |
| 22. | Bilateral | Lung |
| 23. | Template | Marker |
Figure 2Cancer-specific mortality-free survival rates after PC-RPLND after stratification for type of resection (template–blue line vs. bilateral–red line, p-value = 0.15).
Figure 3Recurrence-free survival rates after PC-RPLND after stratification for type of resection (template–blue line vs. bilateral–red line, p-value = 0.0078).