Esther M K Wit1, Florian van Beurden2,3, Gijs H Kleinjan2,3,4, Nikolaos Grivas2,5, Clarize M de Korne3, Tessa Buckle2,3, Maarten L Donswijk6, Elise M Bekers7, Fijs W B van Leeuwen2,3, Henk G van der Poel2. 1. Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.wit@nki.nl. 2. Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Urology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete Medical School, Heraklion, Greece. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies indicated that location and amount of detected sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in prostate cancer (PCa) are influenced where SLN-tracer is deposited within the prostate. To validate whether intratumoral (IT) tracer injection helps to increase identification of tumor-positive lymph nodes (LNs) better than intraprostatic (IP) tracer injection, a prospective randomized phase II trial was performed. METHODS: PCa patients with a > 5% risk of lymphatic involvement were randomized between ultrasound-guided transrectal injection of indocyanine green-[99mTc]Tc-nanocolloid in 2 depots of 1 mL in the tumor (n = 55, IT-group) or in 4 depots of 0.5 mL in the peripheral zone of the prostate (n = 58, IP-group). Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and SPECT/CT were used to define the location of the SLNs. SLNs were dissected using combination of radio- and fluorescence-guidance, followed by extended pelvic LN dissection and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Outcome measurements were number of tumor-bearing SNs, tumor-bearing LNs, removed nodes, number of patients with nodal metastases, and metastasis-free survival (MFS) of 4-7-year follow-up data. RESULTS: IT-injection did not result in significant difference of removed SLNs (5.0 vs 6.0, p = 0.317) and histologically positive SLNs (28 vs 22, p = 0.571). However, in IT-group, the SLN-positive nodes were 73.7% of total positive nodes compared to 37.3% in IP-group (p = 0.015). Moreover, significantly more node-positive patients were found in IT-group (42% vs 24%, p = 0.045), which did not result in worse MFS. In two patients (3.6%) from whom the IT-tracer injection only partly covered intraprostatic tumor spread, nodal metastases in ePLND without tumor-positive SNs were yielded. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage-positive SLNs found after IT-injection were significantly higher compared to IP-injection. Significantly more node-positive patients were found using IT-injection, which did not affect MFS. IT-injection failed to detect nodal metastases from non-index satellite lesions. Therefore, we suggest to combine IT- and IP-tracer injections in men with visible tumor on imaging.
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies indicated that location and amount of detected sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in prostate cancer (PCa) are influenced where SLN-tracer is deposited within the prostate. To validate whether intratumoral (IT) tracer injection helps to increase identification of tumor-positive lymph nodes (LNs) better than intraprostatic (IP) tracer injection, a prospective randomized phase II trial was performed. METHODS: PCa patients with a > 5% risk of lymphatic involvement were randomized between ultrasound-guided transrectal injection of indocyanine green-[99mTc]Tc-nanocolloid in 2 depots of 1 mL in the tumor (n = 55, IT-group) or in 4 depots of 0.5 mL in the peripheral zone of the prostate (n = 58, IP-group). Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and SPECT/CT were used to define the location of the SLNs. SLNs were dissected using combination of radio- and fluorescence-guidance, followed by extended pelvic LN dissection and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Outcome measurements were number of tumor-bearing SNs, tumor-bearing LNs, removed nodes, number of patients with nodal metastases, and metastasis-free survival (MFS) of 4-7-year follow-up data. RESULTS: IT-injection did not result in significant difference of removed SLNs (5.0 vs 6.0, p = 0.317) and histologically positive SLNs (28 vs 22, p = 0.571). However, in IT-group, the SLN-positive nodes were 73.7% of total positive nodes compared to 37.3% in IP-group (p = 0.015). Moreover, significantly more node-positive patients were found in IT-group (42% vs 24%, p = 0.045), which did not result in worse MFS. In two patients (3.6%) from whom the IT-tracer injection only partly covered intraprostatic tumor spread, nodal metastases in ePLND without tumor-positive SNs were yielded. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage-positive SLNs found after IT-injection were significantly higher compared to IP-injection. Significantly more node-positive patients were found using IT-injection, which did not affect MFS. IT-injection failed to detect nodal metastases from non-index satellite lesions. Therefore, we suggest to combine IT- and IP-tracer injections in men with visible tumor on imaging.
Authors: Susanne H Estourgie; Omgo E Nieweg; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Bin B R Kroon Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 7.794
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