Point-Counterpoint: Radioisotope-guided Lymphadenectomy for Pelvic Node Staging: The SENTINELLE Study.

Abstract

No AccessJournal of UrologyPoint of View16 May 2023Point-Counterpoint: Radioisotope-guided Lymphadenectomy for Pelvic Node Staging: The SENTINELLE Study Marlon Perera and Karim A. Touijer Marlon PereraMarlon Perera https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1138-6389 Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York More articles by this author and Karim A. TouijerKarim A. Touijer *Correspondence: Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065 E-mail Address: [email protected] Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003494AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail REFERENCES 1. Limited versus extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021; 4(4):532-539. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 2. Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early oncological outcomes from a randomized phase 3 trial. Eur Urol.2021; 79(5):595-604. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 3. . Trial of Modifications to Radical Prostatectomy. 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01407263?term=lymphadenectomy&cond=Prostate+Cancer&draw=2&rank=23. Google Scholar 4. A randomized trial on pelvic lymph node dissection versus no lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy: report of a trial in progress. J Clin Oncol.2022; 40(16_suppl):TPS5116. Crossref, Google Scholar 5. Survival outcomes of men with lymph node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis of different postoperative management strategies. Eur Urol.2018; 73(6):890-896. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 6. . Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection and its extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol.2021; 4(2):134-149. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 7. . Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol.2012; 62(1):1-15. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 8. Radioisotope-guided lymphadenectomy for pelvic lymph node staging in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (the prospective SENTINELLE study). J Urol.2023; 209(2):364-373. Link, Google Scholar 9. , Hruby S, Pirich C, Janetschek G. Visualisation of the lymph node pathway in real time by laparoscopic radioisotope- and fluorescence-guided sentinel lymph node dissection in prostate cancer staging. Urology.2012; 80(5):1080-1087. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 10. Fluorescence guided targeted pelvic lymph node dissection for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015; 194(2):357-363. Link, Google Scholar 11. . Intraoperative fluorescence imaging for detection of sentinel lymph nodes and lymphatic vessels during open prostatectomy using indocyanine green. J Urol.2015; 194(2):371-377. Link, Google Scholar 12. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet.2020; 395(10231):1208-1216. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 13. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen Positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol.2020; 77(4):403-417. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 14. . Diagnostic efficacy of 68Gallium-PSMA Positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol.2016; 195(5):1436-1443. Link, Google Scholar 15. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga-Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol.2016; 70(6):926-937. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 16. A phase 2/3 prospective multicenter study of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific membrane antigen PET/CT with (18)F-DCFPyL in prostate cancer patients (OSPREY). J Urol. 2021; 206(1):52-61. Link, Google Scholar 17. Consensus statements on PSMA PET/CT response assessment criteria in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.2021; 48(2):469-476. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 18. Using PSMA imaging for prognostication in localized and advanced prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol.2022; 20(1):23-47. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 19. Ultrasmall renally clearable silica nanoparticles target prostate cancer. ACS Appl Mater Inter.2019; 11(47):43879-43887. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 20. Clinical trial protocol for LuTectomy: a single-arm study of the dosimetry, safety, and potential benefit of 177Lu-PSMA-617 prior to prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus.2021; 7(2):234-237. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 21. Histological comparison between predictive value of preoperative 3-T multiparametric MRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan for pathological outcomes at radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. BJU Int.2021; 127(1):71-79. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar Submitted December 20, 2022; accepted April 12, 2023; published 000. Support: This work was supported by the Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers at MSK, NIH/NCI grant P50 CA092629, and the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (P30 CA008748). Marlon Perera is sponsored by the Australian-America Fulbright Commission administered through a 2021-2022 Fulbright Future Scholarship funded by The Kinghorn Foundation. Conflict of Interest: Ethics Statement: © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsprostatic neoplasmsMetricsAuthor Information Marlon Perera Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York More articles by this author Karim A. Touijer Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York *Correspondence: Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065 E-mail Address: [email protected] More articles by this author Expand All Submitted December 20, 2022; accepted April 12, 2023; published 000. Support: This work was supported by the Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers at MSK, NIH/NCI grant P50 CA092629, and the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (P30 CA008748). Marlon Perera is sponsored by the Australian-America Fulbright Commission administered through a 2021-2022 Fulbright Future Scholarship funded by The Kinghorn Foundation. Conflict of Interest: Ethics Statement: Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...