Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of lymph node dissection in the management of prostate cancer

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lymph node dissection is a standard procedure for treatment of several cancers, but its role in prostate cancer (PCa) as an adjunct of radical prostatectomy is still debated and controversial. Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is currently the most reliable means of diagnosis of lymph node metastases. A uniform PLND surgical template cannot be determined, but recent evidence shows that extended PLND provides more lymph nodes, increases the accuracy of detection of lymph node metastases, and affects decision making with regard to adjuvant therapy. Several nomograms have been developed to predict those who may need more extensive PLND, while sparing the rest. Importantly, no prospective data indicate that extension of PLND improves cancer control or benefits survival. A well designed prospective randomized study is needed to resolve these issues. We present a comprehensive literature review and critical discussion of the diagnostic and therapeutic role of PLND in PCa.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fowler JE Jr, Whitmore WF Jr (1981) The incidence and extent of pelvic lymph node metastases in apparently localized prostatic cancer. Cancer 47:2941–2945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Flocks RH, Culp D, Porto R (1959) Lymphatic spread from prostatic cancer. J Urol 81:194–196

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Studer UE, Collette L, Sylvester R (2010) Can radical prostatectomy benefit patients despite the presence of regional metastases? Eur Urol 57:762–763 (author reply 763–765)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Masterson TA, Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ et al (2006) The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 175:1320–1324 (discussion 1324–1325)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Joslyn SA, Konety BR (2006) Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 68:121–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ et al (2004) Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 172:1840–1844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R et al (2003) Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure? J Urol 169:849–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M et al (1999) Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 341:1781–1788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J et al (2006) Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol 7:472–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Golimbu M, Morales P, Al-Askari S et al (1979) Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostatic cancer. J Urol 121:617–620

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wawroschek F, Vogt H, Weckermann D et al (2001) Radioisotope guided pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. J Urol 166:1715–1719

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P (1997) Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: comparison of the extended and modified techniques. J Urol 158:1891–1894

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R (2002) Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 167:1681–1686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R et al (2002) Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 168:514–518 (discussion 518)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MS et al (2003) Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 169:145–147 (discussion 147–148)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weingartner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A et al (1996) Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol 156:1969–1971

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A et al (2007) Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 69:147–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Okuno H et al (2000) Per-operative frozen section examination of pelvic nodes is unnecessary for the majority of clinically localized prostate cancers in the prostate-specific antigen era. Int J Urol 7:281–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A et al (2006) Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 50:1006–1013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Musch M, Klevecka V, Roggenbuck U et al (2008) Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1,380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol 179:923–928 (discussion 928–929)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH et al (2009) Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55:1251–1265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al (1997) Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 277:1445–1451

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB et al (2007) Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 69:1095–1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA et al (2003) A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 170:1798–1803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Godoy KT, Chong A, Cronin et al (2011) Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection and the impact of standard template dissection on nomogram prediction of lymph node involvement. Eur Urol (Epub ahead of print)

  27. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A et al (2006) Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol 49:1019–1026 (discussion 1017–1026)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI, Chun FK et al (2007) Percentage of positive biopsy cores can improve the ability to predict lymph node invasion in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 51:1573–1581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B et al (2010) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 8:162–200

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Engel J, Bastian PJ, Baur H et al (2010) Survival benefit of radical prostatectomy in lymph node-positive patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57:754–761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Daneshmand S, Quek ML, Stein JP et al (2004) Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long-term results. J Urol 172:2252–2255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF et al (2009) Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer. A new proposal based on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N+ patients treated with radical prostatectomy, extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 55:261–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Siddiqui S et al (2007) Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 178:864–870 (discussion 861–870)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cheng L, Zincke H, Blute ML et al (2001) Risk of prostate carcinoma death in patients with lymph node metastasis. Cancer 91:66–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ et al (2005) The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 173:1121–1125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Steinberg GD et al (2008) The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urol 179:28–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schroder FH, Kurth KH, Fossa SD et al (2004) Early versus delayed endocrine treatment of pN1–3 M0 prostate cancer without local treatment of the primary tumor: results of European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 30846—a phase III study. J Urol 172:923–927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Schroder FH, Kurth KH, Fossa SD et al (2009) Early versus delayed endocrine treatment of T2–T3 pN1–3 M0 prostate cancer without local treatment of the primary tumour: final results of European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer protocol 30846 after 13 years of follow-up (a randomised controlled trial). Eur Urol 55:14–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Palapattu GS, Allaf ME, Trock BJ et al (2004) Prostate specific antigen progression in men with lymph node metastases following radical prostatectomy: results of long-term followup. J Urol 172:1860–1864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. von Bodman C, Godoy G, Chade DC et al (2010) Predicting biochemical recurrence-free survival for patients with positive pelvic lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 184:143–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Han M, Partin AW, Piantadosi S et al (2001) Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 166:416–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L et al (2005) Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 366:572–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J et al (2009) Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol 181:956–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U et al (2009) Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol 27:2924–2930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Da Pozzo LF, Cozzarini C, Briganti A et al (2009) Long-term follow-up of patients with prostate cancer and nodal metastases treated by pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical prostatectomy: the positive impact of adjuvant radiotherapy. Eur Urol 55:1003–1011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishishinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan

    Jun Miki & Shin Egawa

Authors
  1. Jun Miki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shin Egawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Miki.

About this article

Cite this article

Miki, J., Egawa, S. The role of lymph node dissection in the management of prostate cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 16, 195–202 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-011-0245-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-011-0245-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation