Elio Mazzone1, Paolo Dell'Oglio2,3,4, Nikos Grivas3, Esther Wit3, Maarten Donswijk5, Alberto Briganti6, Fijs Van Leeuwen3,4, Henk van der Poel3. 1. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; mazzone.elio@hsr.it. 2. Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Interventional Molecular Imaging laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and. 6. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
Despite good sensitivity and a good negative predictive value, the implementation of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) for prostate cancer is still controversial. For this reason, we aimed to define the added value of SNB (with different tracer modalities) to ePLND in the identification of nodal metastases. Complication rates and oncologic outcomes were also assessed. Methods: From January 2006 to December 2019, prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed from a single-institution database regarding prostate cancer patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and ePLND with or without additional use of SNB, either with the hybrid tracer indocyanine green (ICG)-99mTc-nanocolloid or with free ICG. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression models tested the impact of adding SNB (either with the hybrid tracer or with free ICG) on lymph nodal invasion detection, complications, and oncologic outcomes. Results: Overall, 1,680 patients were included in the final analysis: 1,168 (69.5%) in the non-SNB group, 161 (9.6%) in the ICG-SNB group, and 351 (20.9%) in the hybrid-SNB group. The hybrid-SNB group (odds ratio, 1.61; 95%CI, 1.18-2.20; P = 0.002) was an independent predictor of nodal involvement, whereas the ICG-SNB group did not reach independent predictor status when compared with the non-SNB group (odds ratio, 1.35; 95%CI, 0.89-2.03; P = 0.1). SNB techniques were not associated with higher rates of complications. Lastly, use of hybrid SNB was associated with lower rates of biochemical recurrence (0.79; 95%CI, 0.63-0.98) and of clinical recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.76, P = 0.035) than were seen in the non-SNB group. Conclusion: The implementation of hybrid-SNB technique with ICG-99mTc-nanocolloid in prostate cancer improves detection of positive nodes and potentially lowers recurrence rates with subsequent optimization of patient management, without harming patient safety.
Despite good sensitivity and a good negative predictive value, the implementation of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) for prostate cancer is still controversial. For this reason, we aimed to define the added value of SNB (with different tracer modalities) to ePLND in the identification of nodal metastases. Complication rates and oncologic outcomes were also assessed. Methods: From January 2006 to December 2019, prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed from a single-institution database regarding prostate cancer patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and ePLND with or without additional use of SNB, either with the hybrid tracer indocyanine green (ICG)-99mTc-nanocolloid or with free ICG. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression models tested the impact of adding SNB (either with the hybrid tracer or with free ICG) on lymph nodal invasion detection, complications, and oncologic outcomes. Results: Overall, 1,680 patients were included in the final analysis: 1,168 (69.5%) in the non-SNB group, 161 (9.6%) in the ICG-SNB group, and 351 (20.9%) in the hybrid-SNB group. The hybrid-SNB group (odds ratio, 1.61; 95%CI, 1.18-2.20; P = 0.002) was an independent predictor of nodal involvement, whereas the ICG-SNB group did not reach independent predictor status when compared with the non-SNB group (odds ratio, 1.35; 95%CI, 0.89-2.03; P = 0.1). SNB techniques were not associated with higher rates of complications. Lastly, use of hybrid SNB was associated with lower rates of biochemical recurrence (0.79; 95%CI, 0.63-0.98) and of clinical recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.76, P = 0.035) than were seen in the non-SNB group. Conclusion: The implementation of hybrid-SNB technique with ICG-99mTc-nanocolloid in prostate cancer improves detection of positive nodes and potentially lowers recurrence rates with subsequent optimization of patient management, without harming patient safety.
Authors: Henk G van der Poel; Esther M Wit; Cenk Acar; Nynke S van den Berg; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Renato A Valdes Olmos; Alexander Winter; Friedhelm Wawroschek; Fredrik Liedberg; Steven Maclennan; Thomas Lam Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Matthias N van Oosterom; Hervé Simon; Laurent Mengus; Mick M Welling; Henk G van der Poel; Nynke S van den Berg; Fijs Wb van Leeuwen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-28
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: 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: 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: Nina Natascha Harke; Michael Godes; Christian Wagner; Mustapha Addali; Bernhard Fangmeyer; Katarina Urbanova; Boris Hadaschik; Jorn H Witt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Erik Briers; Thomas Van den Broeck; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Stefano Fanti; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Silke Gillessen; Nikos Grivas; Jeremy Grummet; Ann M Henry; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Thomas B Lam; Michael Lardas; Matthew Liew; Malcolm D Mason; Lisa Moris; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Henk G van der Poel; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Derya Tilki; Thomas Wiegel; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Philippa Meershoek; Matthias N van Oosterom; Hervé Simon; Laurent Mengus; Tobias Maurer; Pim J van Leeuwen; Esther M K Wit; Henk G van der Poel; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Paolo Dell'Oglio; Elio Mazzone; Edward Lambert; Jonathan Vollemaere; Marijn Goossens; Alessandro Larcher; Jolien Van Der Jeugt; Gaetan Devos; Filip Poelaert; Pieter Uvin; Justin Collins; Geert De Naeyer; Peter Schatteman; Frederiek D'Hondt; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2020-02-13
Authors: Paolo Dell'Oglio; Elio Mazzone; Tessa Buckle; Tobias Maurer; Nassir Navab; Matthias N van Oosterom; Clare Schilling; Max Jh Witjes; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Joachim Klode; Boris Vojnovic; Alexandre Mottrie; Henk G van der Poel; Freddie Hamdy; Fijs Wb van Leeuwen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-15
Authors: Paolo Dell'Oglio; Danny M van Willigen; Matthias N van Oosterom; Kevin Bauwens; Fabian Hensbergen; Mick M Welling; Huijbert van der Stadt; Elise Bekers; Martin Pool; Pim van Leeuwen; Tobias Maurer; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Tessa Buckle Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Bartosz Małkiewicz; Paweł Kiełb; Jakub Karwacki; Róża Czerwińska; Paulina Długosz; Artur Lemiński; Łukasz Nowak; Wojciech Krajewski; Tomasz Szydełko Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Imke Boekestijn; Matthias N van Oosterom; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Floris H P van Velden; Martin Pool; Tobias Maurer; Daphne D D Rietbergen; Tessa Buckle; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 5.605
Authors: Lluís Fumadó; Jose M Abascal; Antoni Mestre-Fusco; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Guadalupe Aguilar; Nuria Juanpere; Lluís Cecchini Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-09-02