Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Perspective

  • 2942 Accesses

Abstract

Lymph node dissection performed during radical prostatectomy is the gold standard for determining lymph node invasion (LNI) in patients with prostate cancer. The role of pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer has been evaluated in depth to determine the need for lymph node removal, as well as the extent of how aggressively lymph nodes should be dissected in these patients. While imaging has not played a significant role in determining LNI in prostate cancer in the past, recent advances in PET/CT, MRI, and sentinel lymph node dissection have provided another modality to identify lymph node metastases with increasing success. Many studies have been done to evaluate the preoperative variables that can be used to predict the likelihood of lymph node invasion and determine nomograms for when pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) should be performed and whether that dissection should be limited or extended. Despite these studies, no one predictive model has been established as the gold standard, and multiple models are used in clinical practice today. The role of PLND and its effect on outcomes in prostate cancer patients has also been studied. It has been suggested that removal of lymph nodes in some cases of prostate cancer may improve clinical outcomes, decrease biochemical recurrence, and increase long-term survival rates. The introduction of minimally invasive surgery, particularly the use robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), has raised further questions about when PLND should be performed. The comparison of outcomes of PLND in RARP versus open prostatectomy has generated new questions about what the standard for PLND should entail.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 229.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Weingartner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A, Gerharz EW, Voge D, Riedmiller H. Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol. 1996;156(6):1969–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69(1):147–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bochner BH, Herr HW, Reuter VE. Impact of separate versus en bloc pelvic lymph node dissection on the number of lymph nodes retrieved in cystectomy specimens. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2295–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2009;55(6):1251–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thurairaja R, Studer UE, Burkhard FC. Indications, extent, and benefits of pelvic lymph node dissection for patients with bladder and prostate cancer. Oncologist. 2009;14(1):40–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, Carter HB, Walsh PC. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172(5 Pt 1):1840–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Touijer K, Rabbani F, Otero JR, et al. Standard versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in patients with a predicted probability of nodal metastasis greater than 1 %. J Urol. 2007;178(1):120–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Golimbu M, Morales P, Al-Askari S, Brown J. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostatic cancer. J Urol. 1979;121(5):617–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N, et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol. 2008;53(1):118–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Briganti A, Suardi N, Capogrosso P, et al. Lymphatic spread of nodal metastases in high-risk prostate cancer: the ascending pathway from the pelvis to the retroperitoneum. Prostate. 2012;72:186–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, et al. Decreasing rate and extent of lymph node staging in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy may undermine the rate of diagnosis of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;58(6):882–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Godoy G, Chong KT, Cronin A, et al. Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection and the impact of standard template dissection on nomogram prediction of lymph node involvement. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):195–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997;277(18):1445–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhatta-Dhar N, Reuther AM, Zippe C, Klein EA. No difference in six-year biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy in low-risk patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2004;63(3):528–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Berglund RK, Sadetsky N, DuChane J, Carroll PR, Klein EA. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy does not affect 5-year failure rates for low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol. 2007;177(2):526–9; discussion 529–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Makarov DV, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Pathological outcomes and biochemical progression in men with T1c prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy with prostate specific antigen 2.6 to 4.0 vs 4.1 to 6.0 ng/ml. J Urol. 2006;176(2):554–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kawakami J, Meng MV, Sadetsky N, Latini DM, Duchane J, Carroll PR. Changing patterns of pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol. 2006;176(4 Pt 1):1382–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Studer UE. Should patients with prostate cancer and a risk of nodal metastasis >1 % undergo standard or limited PLND? Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008;5(1):10–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weckermann D, Goppelt M, Dorn R, Wawroschek F, Harzmann R. Incidence of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of < or =10 ng/mL and biopsy Gleason score of < or =6, and their influence on PSA progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2006;97(6):1173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MS, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169(1):145–7; discussion 147–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wolf Jr JS, Cher M, Dall’era M, Presti Jr JC, Hricak H, Carroll PR. he use and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging and fine needle aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 1995;153(3 Pt 2):993–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(25):2491–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P, et al. 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):392–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Weckermann D, Dorn R, Trefz M, Wagner T, Wawroschek F, Harzmann R. Sentinel lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: experience with more than 1,000 patients. J Urol. 2007;177(3):916–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jeschke S, Nambirajan T, Leeb K, Ziegerhofer J, Sega W, Janetschek G. Detection of early lymph node metastases in prostate cancer by laparoscopic radioisotope guided sentinel lymph node dissection. J Urol. 2005;173(6):1943–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Janetschek G. Can sentinel pelvic lymph node dissection replace extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer? Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007;4(12):636–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meinhardt W, Valdes Olmos RA, van der Poel HG, Bex A, Horenblas S. Laparoscopic sentinel node dissection for prostate carcinoma: technical and anatomical observations. BJU Int. 2008;102(6):714–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2005;173(4):1121–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Masterson TA, Bianco Jr FJ, Vickers AJ, et al. The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;175(4):1320–4; discussion 1324–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abdollah F, Schmitges J, Sun M, et al. A critical assessment of the value of lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy: a population-based study. Prostate. 2011. doi:10.1002/pros.21376.

  31. Withrow DR, Degroot JM, Siemens DR, Groome PA. Therapeutic value of lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy: a population-based case-cohort study. BJU Int. 2011;108(2):209–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 2006;68(1):121–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pagliarulo V, Hawes D, Brands FH, et al. Detection of occult lymph node metastases in locally advanced node-negative prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2735–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(17):1248–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Steinberg GD, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urol. 2008;179(1):28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure? J Urol. 2003;169(3):849–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Fleischmann A, Studer UE. Good outcome for patients with few lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):344–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fleischmann A, Schobinger S, Markwalder R, et al. Prognostic factors in lymph node metastases of prostatic cancer patients: the size of the metastases but not extranodal extension independently predicts survival. Histopathology. 2008;53(4):468–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Fleischmann A, Schobinger S, Schumacher M, Thalmann GN, Studer UE. Survival in surgically treated, nodal positive prostate cancer patients is predicted by histopathological characteristics of the primary tumor and its lymph node metastases. Prostate. 2009;69(4):352–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(24):1781–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(6):472–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Walsh PC, DeWeese TL, Eisenberger MA. A structured debate: immediate versus deferred androgen suppression in prostate cancer-evidence for deferred treatment. J Urol. 2001;166(2):508–15; discussion 515–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Cheng L, Zincke H, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Scherer B, Bostwick DG. Risk of prostate carcinoma death in patients with lymph node metastasis. Cancer. 2001;91(1):66–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Siddiqui S, et al. Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2007;178(3 Pt 1):864–70; discussion 870–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF, et al. 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. 2009;55(2):261–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Da Pozzo LF, Cozzarini C, Briganti A, et al. 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. 2009;55(5):1003–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Paul DB, Loening SA, Narayana AS, Culp DA. Morbidity from pelvic lymphadenectomy in staging carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1983;129(6):1141–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: comparison of the extended and modified techniques. J Urol. 1997;158(5):1891–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2006;50(5):1006–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1681–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S. Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):29–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sachedina N, De Los Santos R, Manoharan M, Soloway MS. Total prostatectomy and lymph node dissection may be done safely without pelvic drainage: an extended experience of over 600 cases. Can J Urol. 2009;16(4):4721–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Koya MP, Manoharan M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. Venous thromboembolism in radical prostatectomy: is heparinoid prophylaxis warranted? BJU Int. 2005;96(7):1019–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Koch MO, Smith Jr JA. Low molecular weight heparin and radical prostatectomy: a prospective analysis of safety and side effects. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 1997;1(2):101–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Smith Jr JA, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2385–9; discussion 2389–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G, et al. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol. 2007;178(2):478–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ou YC, Yang CR, Wang J, et al. The learning curve for reducing complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon. BJU Int. 2011;108(3):420–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Zorn KC, Katz MH, Bernstein A, et al. Pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: assessing nodal yield, perioperative outcomes, and complications. Urology. 2009;74(2):296–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Yates J, Haleblian G, Stein B, Miller B, Renzulli J, Pareek G. The impact of robotic surgery on pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: the Brown University early robotic experience. Can J Urol. 2009;16(5):4842–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Silberstein JL, Derweesh IH, Kane CJ. Lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: where do we stand? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2009;12(3):227–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Han M, Tewari AK, Lee BR. Pelvic lymph node dissection during laparoscopic/robotic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1667.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lallas CD, Pe ML, Thumar AB, et al. Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;107(7):1136–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Davis JW, Gaston K, Anderson R, et al. Robot assisted extended pelvic lymphadenectomy at radical cystectomy: lymph node yield compared with second look open dissection. J Urol. 2011;185(1):79–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Feifer AH, Elkin EB, Lowrance WT, et al. Temporal trends and predictors of pelvic lymph node dissection in open or minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2011;117:3933–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8(2):162–200.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2008;53(1):68–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Carroll P, Albertsen PC, Greene K, et al. Prostate-specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. Linthicum: American Urological Association; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA, et al. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;170(5):1798–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kattan MW, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 1997;79(3):528–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, et al. 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. 2007;69(6):1095–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49(6):1019–26; discussion 1026–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI, Chun FK, et al. 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. 2007;51(6):1573–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian – Weill Cornell, 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Aaron M. Bernie M.D., MPH

  2. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, 525 East 68th Street, Starr 900, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Douglas Scherr M.D. & Michael P. Herman M.D.

Authors
  1. Aaron M. Bernie M.D., MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Scherr M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael P. Herman M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron M. Bernie M.D., MPH .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. New York Presbyterian Hospital, Brady Urologic Health Center, Weill Cornell Medical Center, East 68th Street 525, New York, 10021, New York, USA

    Ashutosh Tewari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bernie, A.M., Scherr, D., Herman, M.P. (2013). Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer Surgery. In: Tewari, A. (eds) Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Perspective. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2864-9_59

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2864-9_59

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-2863-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-2864-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation