Felix Preisser1,2, Roderick C N van den Bergh3, Giorgio Gandaglia4, Piet Ost5, Christian I Surcel6, Prasanna Sooriakumaran7, Francesco Montorsi4, Markus Graefen1, Henk van der Poel3, Alexandre de la Taille8, Alberto Briganti4, Laurent Salomon8, Guillaume Ploussard8,9, Derya Tilki1,10. 1. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 2. University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Radiotherapy, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 6. Centre of Urological Surgery, Dialysis and Renal Transplantation, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania. 7. Department of Uro-oncology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 8. Department of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Créteil, France. 9. Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital and Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France. 10. Departments of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pelvic lymph node dissection represents the gold standard of lymph node staging in patients with prostate cancer. We sought to assess the effect of extended pelvic lymph node dissection on oncologic outcomes in patients with characteristics of D'Amico intermediate or high risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multi-institutional database of 4 centers we identified 9,742 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2000 to 2017 with or without pelvic lymph node dissection. Only patients with a greater than 5% probability of lymph node invasion according to the Briganti nomogram were included in study. We performed 2:1 propensity score matching to account for potential differences between the 2 cohorts. Cox regression models were used to test the effect of pelvic lymph node dissection on biochemical recurrence, metastasis and cancer specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall 707 patients (7.3%) did not undergo pelvic lymph node dissection, of whom 520 and 187 harbored D'Amico intermediate and high risk characteristics, respectively. A median of 14 lymph nodes (IQR 8-21) were removed in the pelvic lymph node dissection cohort and 1,714 of these cases (19.0%) harbored lymph node metastasis. After propensity score matching the biochemical recurrence-free, metastasis-free and cancer specific mortality-free survival rates were 60.4% vs 65.6% (p=0.07), 87.0% vs 90.0% (p=0.06) and 95.2% vs 96.4% (p=0.2) for pelvic lymph node dissection vs no pelvic lymph node dissection 120 months after radical prostatectomy. Multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for postoperative and preoperative tumor characteristics revealed that pelvic lymph node dissection performed at radical prostatectomy was no independent predictor of biochemical recurrence, metastasis or cancer specific mortality (all p ≥0.1). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in oncologic outcomes in patients with D'Amico high or intermediate risk prostate cancer in whom pelvic lymph node dissection was or was not performed at radical prostatectomy. The therapeutic value of pelvic lymph node dissection remains unclear.
PURPOSE: Pelvic lymph node dissection represents the gold standard of lymph node staging in patients with prostate cancer. We sought to assess the effect of extended pelvic lymph node dissection on oncologic outcomes in patients with characteristics of D'Amico intermediate or high risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multi-institutional database of 4 centers we identified 9,742 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2000 to 2017 with or without pelvic lymph node dissection. Only patients with a greater than 5% probability of lymph node invasion according to the Briganti nomogram were included in study. We performed 2:1 propensity score matching to account for potential differences between the 2 cohorts. Cox regression models were used to test the effect of pelvic lymph node dissection on biochemical recurrence, metastasis and cancer specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall 707 patients (7.3%) did not undergo pelvic lymph node dissection, of whom 520 and 187 harbored D'Amico intermediate and high risk characteristics, respectively. A median of 14 lymph nodes (IQR 8-21) were removed in the pelvic lymph node dissection cohort and 1,714 of these cases (19.0%) harbored lymph node metastasis. After propensity score matching the biochemical recurrence-free, metastasis-free and cancer specific mortality-free survival rates were 60.4% vs 65.6% (p=0.07), 87.0% vs 90.0% (p=0.06) and 95.2% vs 96.4% (p=0.2) for pelvic lymph node dissection vs no pelvic lymph node dissection 120 months after radical prostatectomy. Multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for postoperative and preoperative tumor characteristics revealed that pelvic lymph node dissection performed at radical prostatectomy was no independent predictor of biochemical recurrence, metastasis or cancer specific mortality (all p ≥0.1). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in oncologic outcomes in patients with D'Amico high or intermediate risk prostate cancer in whom pelvic lymph node dissection was or was not performed at radical prostatectomy. The therapeutic value of pelvic lymph node dissection remains unclear.
Authors: Nicola Frego; Marco Paciotti; Nicolò Maria Buffi; Davide Maffei; Roberto Contieri; Pier Paolo Avolio; Vittorio Fasulo; Alessandro Uleri; Massimo Lazzeri; Rodolfo Hurle; Alberto Saita; Giorgio Ferruccio Guazzoni; Paolo Casale; Giovanni Lughezzani Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-02-25
Authors: Mike Wenzel; Felix Preisser; Benedikt Hoeh; Maria N Welte; Clara Humke; Clarissa Wittler; Christoph Würnschimmel; Andreas Becker; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Felix K H Chun; Philipp Mandel; Luis A Kluth Journal: Front Surg Date: 2021-12-09