Impact Of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Research Articles

Therapeutic value of pelvic lymph node dissection in high-grade prostate cancer

Objective: This study aimed to assess the therapeutic value of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in high-grade margin-negative prostate cancer without and with lymph node metastases. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases in the Western Australian radical prostatectomy (RP) database between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. We identified men who had RP only (no PLND) and those had RP with PLND. Further, a subset of high-grade (Gleason score (GS) ⩾8) margin-negative cancers were identified. We assessed the therapeutic impact of PLND in this high-risk but potentially curable subset. Results: A total of 5648 prostatectomies were performed, and 1209 of these had concurrent PLND, negative surgical margins, and follow-up prostate-specific antigen (PSA) data. Of 558 men with high-grade margin-negative prostate cancer, 395 men had PLND, while 163 did not. There were significantly more patients with T3/T4 disease in the PLND group compared to those without PLND. Preoperative PSA did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, when stage matched, PLND had no impact on the numbers of men who were cured compared to those who failed surgical intervention. Conclusion: PLND has value in staging high-grade prostate cancer but has limited impact on producing a durable PSA cure or avoiding adjuvant therapy. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicenter audit.

Pelvic lymph node dissection in high-risk prostate cancer.

ABSTRACTIntroduction:The therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in prostate cancer (PCa) is unknown due to absence of randomized trials.Objective:to present a critical review on the therapeutic benefits of PLND in high risk localized PCa patients.Materials and Methods:A search of the literature on PLND was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline database. Articles obtained regarding diagnostic imaging and sentinel lymph node dissection, PLND extension, impact of PLND on survival, PLND in node positive “only” disease and PLND surgical risks were critically reviewed.Results:High-risk PCa commonly develops metastases. In these patients, the possibility of presenting lymph node disease is high. Thus, extended PLND during radical prostatectomy may be recommended in selected patients with localized high-risk PCa for both accurate staging and therapeutic intent. Although recent advances in detecting patients with lymph node involvement (LNI) with novel imaging and sentinel node dissection, extended PLND continues to be the most accurate method to stage lymph node disease, which may be related to the number of nodes removed. However, extended PLND increases surgical time, with potential impact on perioperative complications, hospital length of stay, rehospitalization and healthcare costs. Controversy persists on its therapeutic benefit, particularly in patients with high node burden.Conclusion:The impact of PLND on biochemical recurrence and PCa survival is unclear yet. Selection of patients may benefit from extended PLND but the challenge remains to identify them accurately. Only prospective randomized study would answer the precise role of PLND in high-risk pelvis confined PCa patients.

Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy on 30-day post operative complications: Results from a large national database.

238 Background: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) is the most effective method for detecting lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer. The association between PLND during RP and morbidity, especially thromboembolic adverse events (AEs), remains unclear. We assessed the effect of PLND on 30−day postoperative AEs in patients undergoing RP using the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (NSQIP). Methods: A total of 21,895 men undergoing RP between 2006 and 2013 were classified into two groups according to surgical approach (MIS−RP vs. ORP) and whether PLND was performed. Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for approach and demographic features was performed to assess the impact of PLND for predicting two primary endpoints (overall complications and major complications defined as Clavien−Dindo ≥ 3) and for 17 types of complications. P−values were adjusted to maintain an experiment−wise p < 0.05. Results: MIS−RP and ORP was performed in 17,354 (79.3%) and 4,541 (20.7%) patients, respectively. PLND was performed in 7,579 (43.7%) and 3,597 (79.2%) patients in the MIS−RP and ORP groups, respectively. The overall postoperative complication rate was 8.7% (5.5% for MIS−RP and 21.0% for ORP). PLND was not associated with a higher risk of DVT (OR 0.99; p= 0.98) or PE (OR 1.02; p= 0.91). However, PLND was associated with a higher risk of superficial surgical site infection (OR 1.68; p = 0.013), organ space surgical site infection (OR 1.77; p = 0.02), and perioperative transfusion (OR 1.32; p = 0.002) regardless of surgical approach. PLND was not associated with overall or major AEs on multivariable analysis. ORP was associated with a significantly higher risk of overall (OR 4.64, p < 0.0001) and major (OR 1.6, p = 0.0004) AEs compared to MIS−RP. Conclusions: PLND during RP is associated with a significantly increased risk of certain types of AEs within the 30−day post−operative period. However, there appears to be no significant association between PLND and thromboembolic AEs.