Abstract
Purpose of Review
This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving role of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in the management of testicular cancer (TC). It explores the significance of RPLND as both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool, highlighting its contribution to accurate staging, its impact on oncological outcomes, and its influence on subsequent treatment decisions.
Recent Findings
RPLND serves as an essential diagnostic procedure, aiding in the precise assessment of lymph node involvement and guiding personalized treatment strategies. It has demonstrated therapeutic value, particularly in patients with specific risk factors and disease stages, contributing to improved oncological outcomes and survival rates. Recent studies have emphasized the importance of meticulous patient selection and nerve-sparing techniques to mitigate complications while optimizing outcomes. Additionally, modern imaging and surgical approaches have expanded the potential applications of RPLND.
Summary
In the context of TC management, RPLND remains a valuable and evolving tool. Its dual role in staging and therapy underscores its relevance in contemporary urological practice. This review highlights the critical role of RPLND in enhancing patient care and shaping treatment strategies, emphasizing the need for further research to refine patient selection and surgical techniques.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Testicular cancer (TC) stands as the predominant solid neoplasm among males aged 15 to 40, exhibiting diverse incidence rates among different racial cohorts [1, 2]. TC is relatively rare, accounting for 1% of male tumors and 5% of urological malignancies [3,4,5,6]. Over the recent decades, the incidence of TC has risen for unknown reasons, with significant variations among countries [1, 5, 7]. TC falls into two primary categories: germ cell and stromal carcinomas. Germ cell tumors are the most prevalent, constituting 95% of cases, and are further divided into two histopathological subtypes: approximately 55–60% are seminomatous germ cell tumors (SGCTs), and 40–45% are nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCTs) [8].
TC primarily metastasizes via the lymphatic system, with drainage to retroperitoneal lymph nodes (LNs), including lumbar, celiac, superior, and inferior mesenteric LNs, in 88% of cases [8,9,10,11,12,13]. However, the primary metastatic site is the inguinal region [14, 15]. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is a crucial component of the treatment algorithm for select TC patients. Its role and indications have evolved for both low-stage and advanced TC due to high cure rates achieved by surgery [16]. RPLND conventionally serves as the primary intervention for low-stage NSGCT, encompassing stages IA, IB, and IIA NSGCT, as well as for addressing residual retroperitoneal masses following chemotherapy or as a salvage surgery [17]. Although the surgical approach remains consistent in these instances, the underlying rationale and subsequent outcomes may exhibit variability [18].
The objective of this review is to furnish a comprehensive survey of lymphadenectomy in TC management, encompassing its evolving role in low-stage and advanced cases. Additionally, we delve into contemporary and prospective approaches and therapies, shedding light on the future of TC treatment.
Data Acquisition
For the sake of this narrative review, we performed a thorough literature search in the English language, reviewing original articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and narrative reviews available in the PubMed database up until May 2023. We conducted searches utilizing diverse combinations of the following terms: testicular cancer; lymphadenectomy; retroperitoneal lymph node dissection; sentinel nodes; lymph node metastasis; nodal staging; robot assisted; open surgical; laparoscopic; complications; risk factors; imaging; surgical approaches. A total of 820 pertinent articles were identified, and after the selection process, the final number of papers included in this manuscript amounted to 315. Studies possessing the utmost level of evidence and relevance to the addressed subjects (185) were chosen, with the concurrence of the authors.
Anatomical and Surgical Aspect of Lymphadenectomy
Anatomy of Lymph Drainage
The lymphatic drainage associated with the testicular region is primarily based on retroperitoneal LNs. At the onset of the twentieth century, researchers demonstrated the primary role of LNs adjacent to the great vessels (vena cava inferior, abdominal aorta, common iliac arteries) in the lymphatic drainage of the testes [19]. Further advancements in diagnostic methods have enabled the identification of specific groups of LNs to which lymph from the testes drains [20]. The main drainage in the lymphatic system from the left testicle occurs toward the preaortic, paraaortic, left external iliac, and left common iliac LNs, with subsequent drainage to the precaval, paracaval, interaortocaval, right external iliac, and right common iliac LNs [20]. For the right testis, the primary lymphatic drainage occurs to the precaval, paracaval, interaortocaval, preaortic, right external iliac, and right common iliac LNs, with subsequent drainage to the para-aortic, left external iliac, and left common iliac LNs [20]. The difference in drainage in the lymphatic system between the left and right testicles affects the frequency of metastasis occurrence in LNs. Metastases predominantly occur in ipsilateral LNs to the affected organ [21, 22]. In the left TC, the frequently affected LNs are the preaortic, paraaortic, interaortocaval, left common iliac, and testicular vessel zones. In the right TC, the commonly affected LNs are the aortocaval, precaval, paracaval, preaortic, paraaortic, right common iliac, and right testicular vessels [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. Metastases rarely involve regions above the renal hilum. In some instances, contralateral LNMs can occur, even in 20% of stage II TC patients [20,21,22, 28, 29].
Surgical Techniques and Lymphadenectomy Templates
RPLND is a fundamental treatment approach for TC, serving as primary therapy (P-RPLND) for early-stage tumors or salvage post-chemotherapy (PC-RPLND). Recent advancements [30,31,32,33] have refined surgical techniques and lymphatic drainage understanding, leading to the definition of LN dissection templates. Initially, RPLND encompassed the renal hilum and LNs along the major vessels, but due to high complications and infrequent LN involvement, the procedure has evolved to exclude the renal hilum region [20,21,22, 28, 29, 34, 35].
The essential RPLND template covers the area below the renal vessels and extends to encompass both sides of the common iliac and the proximal one-third of the external iliac regions. It includes paracaval, precaval, interaortocaval, preaortic, paraaortic, ipsilateral and contralateral iliac, and gonadal vein LNs. This template forms the foundation of RPLND techniques. Controversies arise due to its extent and complications related to retrograde ejaculation, leading to various modifications. These modifications have resulted in unilateral RPLND templates, including the right template (precaval, paracaval, interaortocaval, preaortic, right common iliac, and right gonadal regions) and left template (paraaortic, preaortic, interaortocaval, left common iliac, and left gonadal regions) [36,37,38,39,40]. The anatomical templates of lymphadenectomy are depicted in Fig. 1.
Jewett and Donohue introduced the nerve-sparing technique, offering the potential for better long-term oncological outcomes and reduced complications by preserving radicality during RPLND [32, 33]. In this approach, surgeons identify and dissect postganglionic sympathetic nerve fibers responsible for ejaculation. These fibers run along the dorsal surface of the aorta to the superior hypogastric plexus, just below the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). Right fibers are found in the aortocaval zone, while left fibers often course near the paraaortic nodal packet [32, 33, 41,42,43,44]. This technique can be applied in both unilateral and bilateral templates and is highly effective, preserving antegrade ejaculation in over 90% of cases [32, 33, 45].
Moreover, there have been notable advancements in the field of minimally invasive RPLND (miRPLND) techniques in recent years. Presently, RPLND procedures encompass open surgery (oRPLND), laparoscopy (lRPLND), and more recently, robotic-assisted techniques (rRPLND) [30, 31]. In oRPLND, the patient is positioned supine, and a midline abdominal incision is executed. To access the retroperitoneum, the posterior peritoneum is incised along the small bowel mesentery root, extending from the caecum to the ligament of Treitz. The split and roll technique is then implemented, commencing below the left renal vein crossings along the aorta and progressing downward to locate the IMA origin. In bilateral templates, the IMA is ligated and divided, while in unilateral templates, it is preserved. To reduce complications, lymphatic channels are ligated. Improved LN access is achieved by ligating lumbar arteries. Subsequently, gonadal and lumbar veins are ligated, facilitating LN harvesting [41]. rRPLND utilizes the da Vinci robotic system and involves two approaches. In the transperitoneal flank approach, the patient is placed in a lateral position, and the docking robotic system is performed over the patient’s shoulder or flank area. Placements of ports are strategically determined, either in the midline or on the side of the dissection. To gain access to the retroperitoneum, an incision is performed along the Toldt’s white line, and the colon is medially reflected. This approach ensures effective access to the affected side and spermatic cord. Another approach is the supine transperitoneal approach, where the patient lies supine and is positioned in steep Trendelenburg. Docking the robotic system is held over the patient’s head, with ports positioned diagonally in the lower abdomen, oriented towards the side of the affected testicle. Exposure is achieved by making an incision on the posterior peritoneum up to the ligament of Treitz. Notably, this technique enables performing bilateral templates without the need for redocking [30, 46]. Further insights into minimally invasive and contemporary surgical methodologies are expounded upon in the “Modern Surgical Approaches” section.
Complications
Surgical procedures, including RPLND, carry inherent risks of complications. Some of these complications are related to direct intervention in the retroperitoneal region. During RPLND, there is a risk of damaging nerve fibers responsible for ejaculation and encountering complications associated with lymphatic trauma [47,48,49,50,51]. Moreover, there is a possibility of injuring major blood vessels or nearby organs [47, 48, 51]. The mortality rate associated with RPLND is relatively low, ranging from 0.27 to 0.48% in studies involving large cohorts [52,53,54]. However, patients with advanced disease and multiple risk factors may experience severe complications, leading to systemic instability and, in some instances, death [51,52,53,54].
The incidence of complications fluctuates based on the type of RPLND performed. PC-RPLND has a higher complication rate (ranging from 14 to 30%), compared to P-RPLND (7 to 24%) [52, 55,56,57,58,59,60]. Minimally invasive techniques, including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, show fewer complications than open methods [61,62,63,64,65,66]. Notably, there are no statistically significant differences in complication rates between lRPLND and rRPLND [67,68,69]. Several studies have reported reduced complication rates with the unilateral template compared to the bilateral template [38, 59, 70,71,72]. Complications are more common in patients over 40 years old and in cases involving tumors larger than 20 mm [72]. The correlation between the quantity of harvested LNs and the incidence as well as the severity of complications is evident, specifically in those categorized as Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher [16].
Retrograde ejaculation and its results are significant concerns for RPLND patients. The implementation of the nerve-sparing technique in RPLND substantially reduces this complication [55]. Many centers report excellent outcomes, with over 93% preservation of antegrade ejaculation [16, 38, 45, 55, 71, 73,74,75]. Some studies suggest that a unilateral template may yield better results in preserving antegrade ejaculation than a bilateral one [38, 69, 76]. However, in PC-RPLND with advanced tumors, nerve-sparing techniques are often impractical, resulting in poorer outcomes, with less than 70% preservation of antegrade ejaculation in such cases [52]. Figure 2 depicts the most common complications of the lymphadenectomy.
Prognostic Factors for Nodal Involvement
The identification of prognostic biomarkers in testicular cancer assumes paramount significance in the context of clinical management, as it not only facilitates a deeper understanding of disease progression but also holds the potential to inform more precise risk stratification, therapeutic decision-making, and prognostication of patient outcomes [77].
In a study involving 353 TC patients who underwent orchiectomy from 1993 to 2009, 90 cases with over 30% embryonal carcinoma underwent P-RPLND. Their analysis revealed a significant link between endovascular invasion, embryonal carcinoma, and retroperitoneal metastatic risk. Patients in stage II had significantly more LNMs than stage I, indicating that higher-stage TC poses a greater risk of retroperitoneal LN metastasis [78•].
In a retrospective study from March 2007 to January 2017, 45 TC patients with LNMs and 73 without were analyzed. They explored the aspartate aminotransferase to alanine aminotransferase ratio (De Ritis ratio (DRR)) as a predictor. Results showed that a DRR score exceeding 1.30 preoperatively may independently predict retroperitoneal LNM and organ metastasis, influencing treatment decisions [79•]. In another study involving 99 radical orchiectomy patients, the DRR value was inconclusive. Researchers examined five factors: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), neutrophil-to-monocyte ratio (NMR), and DRR. Only NLR and LMR proved significant, with higher NLR and lower LMR correlating with advanced-stage cancer, metastasis, and retroperitoneal LN invasion [80]. In a different retrospective analysis of 115 patients who underwent radical inguinal orchiectomy between 2007 and 2018, researchers focused on the preoperative albumin to globulin ratio (AGR). They found that AGR < 1.47, along with lymphovascular invasion, predicted retroperitoneal nodal and distant metastasis. AGR was significantly lower in deceased patients, making it a useful survival prognosticator [77]. Figure 3 presents an overview of contemporary risk factors associated with metastasis in LNs in TC.
LND is one of the treatment methods in TC, but it is also an important diagnostic tool and should be always performed with the aim of removing potential metastases in lymph nodes [81, 82]. Higher number (> 40) of LNs obtained during surgery gives a bigger possibility of finding metastases in the probe and improving diagnostic efficiency of the procedure [83]. LND gives a chance to confirm the presence or absence of neoplasm cells in lymph nodes and change the preoperative TNM stage based on that. It is a base to adapt methods of treatment to individual patient [82].
Therapeutic Role of LND in TC
Oncological Outcomes
An analysis of 20-year-long data from patients who underwent P-RPLND or PC-RPLND showed overall survival (OS) rate of 89%, cancer-specific survival (CSS) rate of 92%, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of 85%. During a 120-month follow-up, 15% of these patients experienced recurrence [84]. In another study, during a 33-month follow-up, 9% of patients experienced relapse after lRPLND or rRPLND [85••]. For patients who underwent primary rRPLND, 4% experienced relapse in an 8-month follow-up, which is consistent with previous studies reporting 2-year RFS rates of 91% and 97%, respectively [86,87,88].
In patients with NSGCT, PC-RPLND may be performed. Previous studies reported recurrence rates in open bilateral PC-RPLND ranging from 0 to 22.7% [76, 89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100] and in open unilateral PC-RPLND ranging from 3 to 40% [90, 92, 93, 95, 98, 99, 101,102,103,104,105]. Bilateral PC-RPLND showed an 80% OS at 38-month follow-up [91] and a 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rate of 74% [106] and 98% [107], respectively. Unilateral modified template PC-RPLND showed a 75.5% OS at 47-month follow-up [108], 99% OS at 10-year follow-up, 93% RFS after 5 years, and 92% RFS after 10 years [102].
Regarding bilateral post-chemotherapy minimally invasive retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-miRPLND), several studies reported recurrence rates ranging from 0 to 10% [71, 89, 93, 109, 110], while unilateral PC-miRPLND resulted in recurrence rates ranging from 0 to 10.5% [71, 74, 89, 93, 104, 109,110,111,112,113,114,115]. Some studies on bilateral and unilateral post-chemotherapy robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-rRPLND) reported 0% recurrence rates [116,117,118,119,120]. However, a recent study [72] showed a 20.6% recurrence rate in patients who underwent PC-rRPLND, while other studies [121,122,123] reported relapse rates of 4.65%, 6.7%, and 8%, respectively. The limited research and varying results in this area indicate a need for further studies to explore possible mediators of these outcomes.
Impact on Further Therapeutic Process
RPLND can be used as a diagnostic tool to determine appropriate treatment for individuals with TC. A group of NSGCT patients who undergo low-volume nodal metastasis resection at RPLND were evaluated in terms of predictive factors for relapse. Individuals with persistent marker elevation were significantly more likely to suffer a relapse than those with normal markers, sufficiently managed by observation alone. Primary chemotherapy should be advised especially to patients who had elevated markers before RPLND [124]. These findings correspond with further data [125].
In a 2004 study, 99% of patients with stage II NSGCT, who received adjuvant etoposide and cisplatin chemotherapy after P-RPLND, did not experience a relapse in an 8-year follow-up. With proven effectiveness, the authors are certain that it should be offered to pN2 NSGCT patients [126], whereas pN1 NSGCT patients were found to benefit from RPLND only [127]. Furthermore, bilateral nerve-sparing lRPLND performed on stage I, stage IIA marker-negative, and post-chemotherapy stage IIB patients proved no retroperitoneal recurrence at a mean follow-up of 17.2 months [128], which stands in line with other studies regarding the efficacy of lRPLND in pN + patients [129]. Additionally, lRPLND followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, with two cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin, resulted in no recurrence in pN + patients on a mean follow-up of 84 months [73]. Another research showed that 56 out of 58 patients with stage I NSGCT, who received chemotherapy consisted of 2 cycles of cisplatin, vinblastine (or etoposide), and bleomycin, remained relapse-free on a median follow-up of 93 months [130].
The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines suggest either adjuvant chemotherapy or surveillance after RPLND [131]. These guidelines are overviewed in Fig. 4.
Guidelines
EAU guidelines for RPLND in TC state that RPLND should be performed by an experienced surgeon in a referral center. Nerve-sparing RPLND should only be offered to stage IB (pT2-pT4) NSGCT patients with contraindications to adjuvant chemotherapy and unwilling to undergo surveillance. In addition, it may be considered as an initial treatment in stage IIA NSGCT patients without elevated tumor markers. Men with postpubertal teratomas with a somatic malignant component may also benefit from P-RPLND and should be advised to consider it [131].
The American Urological Association (AUA) indicates RPLND as an alternative treatment option for patients with stage IA NSGCT who decline surveillance or are at risk for noncompliance. According to the AUA, RPLND should be proposed to patients with stage IB NSGCT and is recommended for patients with stage I NSGCT and teratoma with malignant transformation in the primary tumor at the time of orchiectomy. It is also recommended for individuals with stage IIA NSGCT with normal serum (S0) alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels after orchiectomy [132].
The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommendations are consistent with the previous ones and emphasize the importance of strict selection of stage I NSGCT patients for nerve-sparing oRPLND. ESMO suggests nerve-sparing P-RPLND in stage IIA patients with negative markers and a single progressive LN. In addition, patients in post-chemotherapy management with residual LNs larger than 1 cm in axial diameter should undergo nerve-sparing oRPLND [133]. Table 1 provides a summary of the EAU, the AUA, and ESMO recommendations on this topic.
Future Perspectives
Preoperative Nodal Staging
Conventional Imaging
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for TC advise the conduction of a CT scan of the abdominal and pelvic regions with intravenous contrast for all individuals who receive a diagnosis of either seminoma or NSGCT [134, 135]. CT scans are highly sensitive in detecting LNs thanks to their outstanding spatial resolution. However, they are unable to definitively distinguish between benign and cancer-invaded LNs, especially in case of smaller nodes [8, 136].
To identify suspicious LNs, short-axis size criteria are commonly employed, but the specific cutoff values may vary among different medical centers and specialists. Several studies have investigated the most suitable short-axis LN size cutoff as an indicator of neoplastic involvement, using RPLND as the reference standard [137,138,139,140]. When using a threshold of 10 mm or more to identify involved LNs, CT exhibits excellent specificity (> 90%) but limited sensitivity (37–47%) [136, 137]. Reducing the threshold to 4 mm enhances sensitivity to 93% but decreases specificity to 58% [136]. In general, LNs are considered suspicious when their maximum short-axis diameter measures 8–10 mm or more [141]. Employing this CT size cutoff for retroperitoneal LNs yields a highly significant area under the curve (AUC), with both sensitivity and specificity nearing 70% [137].
At present, CT remains the initial imaging modality for surveillance to assess retroperitoneal LNs [9, 142, 143]. Baessler et al. carried out a research investigation [144] to assess the capability of CT radiomics in improving the prognostication of malignant histopathology in retroperitoneal lymph node metastases (LNM) from NSGCTs before post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-RPLND). Their discoveries can be condensed as follows: (i) utilizing a gradient-boosted tree model trained on the five most vital CT radiomic features led to a diagnostic sensitivity/specificity of 88%/78%; (ii) a classifier relying solely on “size” criteria produced a moderate diagnostic sensitivity/specificity of 64%/68%; and (iii) the incorporation of the radiomics classifier would have notably decreased surgical overtreatment by 46% in the independent test and validation groups. This proposed strategy should be amalgamated with established clinical biomarkers and subjected to additional validation through extensive prospective clinical trials.
MRI and CT are often comparable in their ability to assess LNs during TC staging, and they share similar limitations [8, 10, 76, 145,146,147]. Both imaging techniques rely on size criteria and cannot definitively distinguish between benign and cancer-invaded LNs based on tissue characteristics. However, the utilization of MRI in TC staging is limited due to its high cost, lengthy process, and a shortage of physicians experienced in interpreting MRI results [8, 141]. Nonetheless, MRI can prove valuable in specific situations, such as when patients have allergies preventing the use of CT or when CT scans produce inconclusive results. Additionally, it may be preferred by young patients who are concerned about radiation exposure [8, 131, 141]. Some authors have suggested a more focused and concise MRI technique that specifically targets retroperitoneal lymph nodes, excluding inguinal and pelvic areas. This approach shortens the acquisition duration from roughly 30–35 min to just 12–13 min [9, 11]. These recommendations align with guidance provided by ESMO and the Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group (SWENOTECA), which endorse the utilization of contrast-enhanced CT scans for the initial staging and recommend employing retroperitoneal MRI for post-initial treatment follow-up to mitigate radiation exposure in individuals with TC [9, 148,149,150].
18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has been investigated in various TC scenarios, encompassing the initial staging, post-treatment assessment, and recurrence [134, 151]. Some authors have explored the potential of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the staging of NSGCT [152,153,154,155,156,157]. However, it has not exhibited efficacy, and according to NCCN guidelines, its utilization is not advised either in the primary setting or following chemotherapy in cases of NSGCT [14]. Another setting in which 18F-FDG PET/CT has been studied is when relapse occurs following definitive TGCT treatment [14, 158]. Ultimately, it remains uncertain whether 18F-FDG PET/CT offers superior diagnostic capabilities compared to CT scans and tumor markers in cases of suspected recurrence in TGCT [134]. The diagnostic and prognostic effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET/CT was also assessed in 114 patients with suspected recurrence of TGCT [159]. The study revealed that 18F-FDG PET/CT achieved a sensitivity of 86.8% and a specificity of 90.2%. Nonetheless, the study did not directly compare it with other imaging modalities, thus leaving it uncertain whether 18F-FDG PET/CT outperforms conventional imaging [134].
Woldu SL et al. evaluated the potential of anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (18F-fluciclovine) PET/CT for the accurate detection of residual NSGCT prior to RPLND [160]. 18F-Fluciclovine enables cancer detection through the modulation of mechanisms that control elevated amino acid uptake, a characteristic prevalent in malignant tumors. This mechanism differs from that of 18F-FDG. In May 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for the utilization of 18F-fluciclovine in a PET/CT scan for men with suspected recurrence of prostate cancer [160,161,162]. However, the experimental 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT exhibited a low sensitivity of 29% and specificity of 33% when compared to the reference standard of RPLND [160].
Novel Imaging Techniques
Lymphotropic nanoparticle MRI (LNMRI) utilizing ferumoxtran-10 has been investigated as a prospective technique for identifying retroperitoneal LNs in individuals with TGCTs. These nanoparticles aggregate within LNs, making them visible on MRI. In LNMRI, abnormal LNs appear as nodules with a mixed signal, featuring an intensified central area surrounded by a peripheral signal decrease. A pilot study by Harisinghani et al. [163] researched LNMRI for identifying hidden metastatic lesions in a cohort of 18 men with TC. LNMRI demonstrated enhanced sensitivity (88% vs. 71%) and specificity (92% vs. 68%) in contrast to traditional MRI or CT imaging methods. [134]. Notably, LNMRI achieved a sensitivity of 100% in detecting positive LNs smaller than 10 mm, which might be missed by conventional imaging methods. Nevertheless, these promising findings remain devoid of external validation owing to the limited sample size and the lack of randomization in the research [9].
The ghrelin receptor, also identified as the growth hormone secretagogue receptor 1a (GHS-R1a), exhibits varying expression in both healthy tissues and multiple malignancies, encompassing prostate, testicular, and ovarian cancers. Researchers are striving to develop ghrelin analogs with enhanced stability and reduced molecular weight that could contain the PET isotope [164]. In chemical studies, this innovative PET radiotracer has demonstrated a strong binding affinity for the ghrelin receptor, with an overall radiochemical yield of 3.1% [134].
Intraoperative imaging holds great promise for identifying viable LNMs during RPLND, ensuring thorough removal of affected LNs. One FDA-approved contrast agent for this purpose is indocyanine green (ICG), which has been extensively studied in diverse urologic malignancies to assist in achieving comprehensive tumor excision and directing lymph node dissection [165,166,167]. Near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) technology enables selective in vivo imaging of different tissues according to their natural absorption and reflection characteristics. Through intravenous administration of fluorescent compounds, we can evaluate tissue perfusion or target cell membrane ligands, which become fluorescent upon activation [134].
While reports of ICG-guided surgery for testicular cancer are limited, a preclinical model of RLND by Penna et al. [168] demonstrated that NIRF imaging enhanced the retrieval of lymph nodes compared to the unassisted method. Furthermore, typical RPLND intermittently excised tissue did not match lymphatic tissue on final pathology. In a recent case study, intravenous ICG was employed to aid in the dissection and eliminating a solitary recurrence of seminoma in the left external iliac LN. Over a 6-year follow-up, no indications of a local recurrence were found or distant metastatic spread, without requiring additional treatment. In addition to portraying the LNs, ICG images also offer real-time visualization of the lymphatic drainage route [14]. The researchers observed that NIRF intraoperative imaging allowed for improved delineation of tumor boundaries and aided in the safe removal of the tumor without damaging adjacent structures nearby [134, 158].
Another intraoperative method involves radiotracers emitting single photons and portable gamma imaging devices. Large-field gamma cameras create 3D hybrid images by integrating volumetric Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) molecular images with CT anatomical images. This allows for accurate detection and localization of LNs in the retroperitoneum, including sentinel LNs, as radiotracers injected into these nodes are absorbed by lymphatic channels [134]. In a study by Zarifmahmoudi et al. [25], nine candidates for post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-RPLND) underwent intraoperative SLN mapping. Patients received an injection of 99mTc-nanocolloid into the spermatic cord stump, and LN radioactivity was measured approximately 1.5 h later. In all patients, a full bilateral RPLND was conducted, encompassing the elimination of any residual masses. In six out of nine patients, an intraoperative gamma probe successfully identified one or more SLNs. In two of the nine patients in whom SLNs were successfully detected, pathological analysis indicated metastatic infiltration in both the sentinel lymph node SLN and additional peritoneal LNs that were excised. The investigations conducted by Blok et al. [25] and Zarifmahmoudi L et al. [25] did not report any false-negative detected SLNs, and there were no nodal recurrences during follow-up. This SLN mapping technique appears to be both feasible and promising.
Modern Surgical Approaches
Robotic-Assisted RPLND
The initial encounter with rRPLND was documented in 2006 by Davol et al. [30], and subsequent investigations have been conducted ever since [119, 144, 169,170,171,172,173]. Robotic surgery presents various potential benefits, such as enhanced three-dimensional visual clarity, tremor reduction, and increased range of motion. Ge et al. [174••] compared rRPLND with non-robotic RPLND (NR-RPLND) and observed the following outcomes favoring rRPLND: reduced hospitalization duration, decreased estimated blood loss, and a lower incidence of complications. Nevertheless, in the comparison of rRPLND with oRPLND/lRPLND, comparable outcomes were noted regarding operative duration, lymph node involvement, and postoperative ejaculatory function impairment [174••]. To mitigate the detrimental consequences of radio/chemotherapy, numerous prospective surgical cohorts have been established to explore the potential of RPLND as a therapeutic choice for stage II seminoma [175]. At present, two comprehensive reports have been issued for RPLND series (PRIMETEST, SEMS), whereas investigations from other studies (COTRIMS, Royal Marsden) have solely been presented in the form of abstracts at medical congresses [101, 176, 177]. Additionally, the upcoming publication will also help define the role of miR371 in selecting men with pN + disease, in addition to assessing the oncological efficacy of P-RPLND [178]. The Royal Marsden trial is the only prospective trial to combine adjuvant carboplatin with P-RPLND. The results of these two trials will have implications for the utilization of rRPLND in patients with seminoma, given that a significant proportion of individuals, up to 15%, manifest with metastatic disease. In general, three approaches to rRPLND are described in the literature: flank transperitoneal, supine transperitoneal, and supine extraperitoneal. Each approach has its inherent constraints, and there is presently inadequate clinical data to substantiate the supremacy of any single approach over the remaining options.
The transperitoneal flank approach is the most longstanding robotic method of entry in the TC context, initially outlined by Davol et al. [30]. Within this procedure, the patient is placed in a lateral flank orientation on a contoured table. Several port placements have been delineated for this method, conventionally involving 3–4 robotic ports and 1–2 auxiliary ports situated on the dissection side or midline. The robotic system is subsequently positioned and secured above the patient’s shoulder or flank. Exposure of the retroperitoneal space is accomplished by creating an incision along the Toldt’s white line and medially to the colon. As needed, a hepatic retractor can be employed on the right flank to enhance the visual field. This technique offers sufficient entry to the involved side of the retroperitoneum and spermatic cord. Nonetheless, in situations necessitating a bilateral template, this method may entail the need for repositioning the robot [118, 170], although instances of single docking have also been documented [17, 179].
The supine transperitoneal approach is gaining popularity and has recently been reported by several research groups [17, 119, 170]. In this method, the patient is arranged in a supine orientation and tilted into a steep Trendelenburg position to promote the cranial descent of the bowel. The robotic system is then placed either in a superior position (Si system) or laterally (Xi system). The robotic ports are inserted at an oblique angle into the lower abdominal region, directed towards the lateral aspect of the affected testis. The procedure commences with a posterior peritoneal cut that extends to the Ligament of Treitz, revealing the retroperitoneal space. To facilitate comprehensive dissection of the LNs according to a standard template, the small intestine is suspended from the abdominal wall with a monofilament suture threaded through a straight needle [17, 118]. However, when using the Xi platform, lateral docking is possible, and a complete bilateral template can be dissected with the excision of the remnant cord without the need for redocking [17, 119]. However, when using the Xi platform, lateral docking is possible, and full bilateral template can be meticulously dissected, incorporating the excision of the remnant cord, all without necessitating robot repositioning [17, 119].
Pooleri et al. devised an innovative method for RPLND through the utilization of the da Vinci Xi system in the supine orientation, referred to as robot-assisted supine extraperitoneal retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RASE-RPLND) [180]. This approach has been reported in a solitary case involving a 31-year-old individual diagnosed with post-chemotherapy NSGCT. The patient was positioned in a supine posture with the addition of a minor sandbag support beneath the right side of the pelvis. Three robotic ports and one working port were introduced via a 3-cm incision positioned in the anterosuperior region of the anterior superior iliac spine. The Xi system was affixed from the opposite side. Extraperitoneal dissection was initiated at the psoas muscle’s outer surface and proceeded anteriorly toward the mass. Pneumatic pressure was used to displace the peritoneal sac anteriorly, providing excellent space for dissection without extensive retraction. The overall surgical duration amounted to 240 min, with an estimated blood loss (EBL) of 60 ml. The individual recovered postoperatively without complications. The authors highlighted several advantages of the supine approach, including early postoperative recovery, improved physiologic airway pressure during prolonged anesthesia, and the capability to execute the procedure without bowel manipulation. Moreover, this technique reduces position-related complications and facilitates emergency resuscitation.
Open Midline Extraperitoneal Retroperitoneal Lymphadenectomy (EP-RPLND)
An innovative approach to RPLND incorporates a midline incision that is entirely situated in the extraperitoneal space [181, 182]. Kim et al. [182] initiated this strategy with the aim of diminishing the perioperative and long-term complications linked to peritoneal access. The procedure is initiated with a midline abdominal incision spanning from a point a few centimeters beneath the xiphoid process (approximately corresponding to the level of the renal hilum) to 4–5 cm below the umbilicus (approximating the level of the ipsilateral common iliac artery). Commencing from the infraumbilical segment of the incision, where the peritoneal separation from the fascia is facilitated, the anterior and posterior rectus fascial layers are excised, and the extraperitoneal region between the peritoneum and the transversalis fascia is meticulously expanded through a combination of gentle blunt and sharp dissection techniques. The peritoneal sac is subsequently gently displaced medially, separating it from the inferolateral abdominal wall on the side of the intended dissection, and repositioned toward the ipsilateral psoas muscle [181]. In a recent study, 69 patients underwent EPRPLND employing this midline surgical approach, with 68 of them effectively undergoing the extraperitoneal technique. The authors noted the restoration of gastrointestinal motility by postoperative day 2, accompanied by a median hospital stay of 3 days. The median calculated blood loss amounted to 325 ml, and there were no instances of ileus documented. A total of 12 (17.6%) complications were observed in 11 patients during the 90-day postoperative period [181]. Furthermore, safeguarding the peritoneal sac additionally mitigates inconspicuous fluid seepage, which holds particular significance in patients undergoing bleomycin therapy post-chemotherapy. By refraining from peritoneal cavity penetration, the potential for adhesive intestinal obstruction and small bowel obstruction (SBO) may be reduced, while also preserving the integrity of extraperitoneal sympathetic neural networks.
Conclusions
In conclusion, RPLND is a valuable tool in the management of TC, both diagnostically and therapeutically. It serves as an essential staging procedure, allowing accurate assessment of LN involvement and facilitating tailored treatment strategies. Therapeutically, RPLND plays a critical role in improving oncological outcomes and survival rates, particularly in patients with certain risk factors and disease stages. It should be considered especially in patients with stage IB and IIA disease without elevated tumor markers. While its impact may vary depending on the specifics of each case, it remains an important option for patients who can benefit from its curative potential. In addition, RPLND influences the subsequent therapeutic process by guiding decisions on adjuvant treatments, such as chemotherapy, and helping to identify patients who may require closer monitoring. Its ability to provide a comprehensive assessment of nodal status and inform subsequent management underscores its continued relevance in the era of modern medicine.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Abbreviations
- 18F-fluciclovine:
-
Anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid
- AFP:
-
Alpha-fetoprotein
- AGR:
-
Albumin to globulin ratio
- AUA:
-
The American Urological Association
- AUC:
-
Area under the curve
- ChT:
-
Chemotherapy
- CSS:
-
Cancer-specific survival
- CT:
-
Computed tomography
- DRR:
-
De Ritis ratio
- DSS:
-
Disease-specific survival
- DWI:
-
Diffusion-weighted imaging
- EAU:
-
European Association of Urology
- EBL:
-
Estimated blood loss
- EP-RPLND:
-
Extraperitoneal retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- ESMO:
-
The European Society for Medical Oncology
- FDA:
-
The Food and Drug Administration
- FDG:
-
18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose
- GHS-R1a:
-
Growth hormone secretagogue receptor 1a
- hCG:
-
Human chorionic gonadotropin
- ICG:
-
Indocyanine green
- IMA:
-
Inferior mesenteric artery
- LMR:
-
Lymphocyte to monocyte ratio
- LN:
-
Lymph node
- LND:
-
Lymphadenectomy
- LNM:
-
Lymphatic node metastasis
- LNMRI:
-
Lymphotropic nanoparticle magnetic resonance imaging
- lRPLND:
-
Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- miRPLND:
-
Minimally invasive retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- MRI:
-
Magnetic resonance imaging
- NCCN:
-
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network
- NIRF:
-
Near-infrared fluorescence
- NLR:
-
Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio
- NMR:
-
Neutrophil to monocyte ratio
- nr-RPLND:
-
Non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- NSGCT:
-
Nonseminomatous germ cell tumor
- oRPLND:
-
Open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- OS:
-
Overall survival
- PC-miRPLND:
-
Post-chemotherapy minimally invasive retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- PC-RPLND:
-
Post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- PC-rRPLND:
-
Post-chemotherapy robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- PET/CT:
-
Positron emission tomography/computed tomography
- PLR:
-
Platelet to lymphocyte ratio
- P-RPLND:
-
Primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- RASE–RPLND:
-
Robot-assisted supine extraperitoneal retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- RFS:
-
Recurrence-free survival
- RPLND:
-
Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- rRPLND:
-
Robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
- SBO:
-
Small bowel obstruction
- SGCT:
-
Seminomatous germ cell tumor
- SLN:
-
Sentinel lymph node
- SPECT:
-
Single-photon emission computed tomography
- SWENOTECA:
-
The Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group
- TC:
-
Testicular cancer
- TGCT:
-
Testicular germ cell tumor
- UICC:
-
The International Union Against Cancer
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Mottaran A, Ercolino A, Bianchi L, Piazza P, Manes F, Amirhassankhani S, et al. Twenty years’ experience in retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer in a tertiary referral center. Medicina (B Aires). 2023;59(1) https://doi.org/10.3390/MEDICINA59010133. This recent article details a series of retroperitoneal lymph node dissections (RPLNDs) conducted between 2000 and 2019 for testicular cancer (TC) at a tertiary referral center. It prospectively evaluates surgical and perioperative outcomes, complications, recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI).
Schwen ZR, Gupta M, Pierorazio PM. A review of outcomes and technique for the robotic-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Adv Urol. Hindawi Limited; 2018;2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2146080.
Park JS, Kim J, Elghiaty A, Ham WS. Recent global trends in testicular cancer incidence and mortality. Medicine. 2018;97(37):e12390. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012390. (Wolters Kluwer Health).
Gaddam SJ, Chesnut GT. Testicle Cancer. StatPearls [En ligne]. StatPearls Publishing; 2023 [cité le 30 août 2023]; Disponible: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK563159/.
Crocetto F, Arcaniolo D, Napolitano L, Barone B, La Rocca R, Capece M, et al. Impact of sexual activity on the risk of male genital tumors: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8500. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH18168500.
Zhang T, Ji L, Liu B, Guan W, Liu Q, Gao Y. Testicular germ cell tumors: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of 145 cases. Int J Clin Exp Pathol [En ligne]. e-Century Publishing Corporation; 2018 [cité le 4 septembre 2023];11(9):4622. Disponible: /pmc/articles/PMC6962990/.
Reese SW, Tully KH, Nabi J, Paciotti M, Chou WH, Trinh QD. Temporal trends in the incidence of testicular cancer in the United States over the past four decades. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(5):834–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EUO.2020.06.011.
Hale GR, Teplitsky S, Truong H, Gold SA, Bloom JB, Agarwal PK. Lymph node imaging in testicular cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(5):864–74. https://doi.org/10.21037/TAU.2018.07.18.
Herrera Ortiz AF, FernándezBeaujon LJ, GarcíaVillamizar SY, Fonseca López FF. Magnetic resonance versus computed tomography for the detection of retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis due to testicular cancer: a systematic literature review. Eur J Radiol Open. 2021;8:100372. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJRO.2021.100372.
Sohaib SA, Koh DM, Barbachano Y, Parikh J, Husband JES, Dearnaley DP, et al. Prospective assessment of MRI for imaging retroperitoneal metastases from testicular germ cell tumours. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(4):362–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CRAD.2008.10.011.
Langberg CW, Baco E, Lauritzen P, Sandbæk G, Rud E. MRI in the follow-up of testicular cancer: less is more. Anticancer Res. 2019;39(6):2963–8. https://doi.org/10.21873/ANTICANRES.13427. (International Institute of Anticancer Research).
Wilder RB, Buyyounouski MK, Efstathiou JA, Beard CJ. Radiotherapy treatment planning for testicular seminoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(4):e445-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.044. (Elsevier).
Hansen J, Jurik AG. Diagnostic value of multislice computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal spread of testicular cancer: a literature review. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(9):1064–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/02841850903220371.
Enei Y, Urabe F, Miki J, Iwatani K, Hisakane A, Yasue K, et al. Clear identification of the rare solitary external iliac lymph node metastasis of testicular cancer by using indocyanine green fluorescence guidance. IJU Case Rep. 2021;4(3):163. https://doi.org/10.1002/IJU5.12273. (Wiley-Blackwell).
Daugaard G, Karas V, Sommer P. Inguinal metastases from testicular cancer. BJU Int. 2006;97(4):724–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1464-410X.2006.06017.X.
Nicolai N, Tarabelloni N, Gasperoni F, Catanzaro M, Stagni S, Torelli T, et al. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis: safety and efficacy analyses at a high volume center. J Urol. 2018;199(3):741–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2017.09.088. (Wolters Kluwer Philadelphia, PA).
Yang H, Obiora D, Tomaszewski JJ. Outcomes and expanding indications for robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10(5):2188. https://doi.org/10.21037/TAU.2020.03.14.
Tran V, Gibson L, Sengupta S. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for germ cell tumour. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(6):3103. https://doi.org/10.21037/TAU-2019-SUC-18. (AME Publications).
Skinner DG, Leadbetter WF. The surgical management of testis tumors. J Urol. Wolters Kluwer Philadelphia, PA; 1971;106(1):84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)61231-X.
Ray B, Hajdu SI, Whitmore WF. Distribution of retroperitoneal lymph node metastases in testicular germinal tumors. Cancer. 1974;33(2):340–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197402)33:2%3c340::aid-cncr2820330207%3e3.0.co;2-y.
Weissbach L, Boedefeld EA. Localization of solitary and multiple metastases in stage II nonseminomatous testis tumor as basis for a modified staging lymph node dissection in stage I. J Urol. 1987;138(1):77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)42997-1.
Donohue JP, Zachary JM, Maynard BR. Distribution of nodal metastases in nonseminomatous testis cancer. J Urol. 1982;128(2):315–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)52904-3.
Zarifmahmoudi L, Ghorbani H, Sadeghi R, Sadri K, Soltani S, Aghaee A. Sentinel lymph node mapping in post chemotherapy nonseminoma testicular cancer patients undergoing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: a series of nine cases. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2022;10(1):36–42. https://doi.org/10.22038/AOJNMB.2021.55218.1380.
Brouwer OR, Olmos RAV, Vermeeren L, Hoefnagel CA, Nieweg OE, Horenblas S. SPECT/CT and a portable gamma-camera for image-guided laparoscopic sentinel node biopsy in testicular cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(4):551–4. https://doi.org/10.2967/JNUMED.110.086660.
Satoh M, Ito A, Kaiho Y, Nakagawa H, Saito S, Endo M, et al. Intraoperative, radio-guided sentinel lymph node mapping in laparoscopic lymph node dissection for Stage I testicular carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;103(10):2067–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.21049.
Ohyama C, Chiba Y, Yamazaki T, Endoh M, Hoshi S, Arai Y. Lymphatic mapping and gamma probe guided laparoscopic biopsy of sentinel lymph node in patients with clinical stage I testicular tumor. J Urol. 2002;168(4 Pt 1):1390–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64456-4.
Blok JM, Kerst JM, Vegt E, Brouwer OR, Meijer RP, Bosch JLHR, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in clinical stage I testicular cancer enables early detection of occult metastatic disease. BJU Int. 2019;124(3):424–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.14618.
Paly JJ, Efstathiou JA, Hedgire SS, Chung PWM, O’Malley M, Shah A, et al. Mapping patterns of nodal metastases in seminoma: rethinking radiotherapy fields. Radiother Oncol. 2013;106(1):64–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RADONC.2012.12.002.
Gerdtsson A, Thor A, Grenabo Bergdahl A, Almås B, Håkansson U, Törnblom M, et al. Unilateral or bilateral retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in nonseminoma patients with postchemotherapy residual tumour? Results from RETROP, a population-based mapping study by the Swedish Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group. Elsevier; 2022;5(2):235–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EUO.2021.02.002.
Davol P, Sumfest J, Rukstalis D. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Urology. 2006;67(1):199.e7-199.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2005.07.022.
Rukstalis DB, Chodak GW, Richie JP, Rowland RG. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in a patient with stage 1 testicular carcinoma. J Urol. 1992;148(6):1907–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37068-4.
Jewett MAS, Kong YSP, Goldberg SD, Sturgeon JFG, Thomas GM, Alison RE, et al. Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for testis tumor with nerve sparing for ejaculation. J Urol. 1988;139(6):1220–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)42869-2.
Donohue JP, Foster RS, Rowland RG, Bihrle R, Jones J, Geier G. Nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy with preservation of ejaculation. J Urol. 1990;144(2I):287–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)39434-X.
Sago AL, Ball TP, Novicki DE. Complications of retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. Urology. Elsevier; 1979;13(3):241–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(79)90410-2.
Staubitz WJ, Early KS, Magoss I V., Murphy GP. Surgical management of testis tumor. J Urol. No longer published by Elsevier; 1974;111(2):205–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)59928-0.
Yadav K. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: an update in testicular malignancies. Clin Transl Oncol 2017;19(7):793–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S12094-017-1622-5.
Mano R, Di Natale R, Sheinfeld J. Current controversies on the role of retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for testicular cancer. Urol Oncol. 2019;37(3):209–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLONC.2018.09.009.
Steiner H, Peschel R, Bartsch G. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection after chemotherapy for germ cell tumours: is a full bilateral template always necessary? BJU Int. 2008;102(3):310–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1464-410X.2008.07579.X.
Donohue JP, Thornhill JA, Foster RS, Rowland RG, Bihrle R. Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for clinical stage A testis cancer (1965 to 1989): modifications of technique and impact on ejaculation. J Urol. 1993;149(2):237–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)36046-9.
Richie JP. Clinical stage 1 testicular cancer: the role of modified retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. J Urol. 1990;144(5):1160–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)39681-7.
Masterson TA, Cary C, Rice KR, Foster RS. The evolution and technique of nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. Urol Clinics North Am. Elsevier; 2015;42(3):311–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UCL.2015.04.005.
Beveridge TS, Allman BL, Johnson M, Power A, Sheinfeld J, Power NE. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: anatomical and technical considerations from a cadaveric study. J Urol. NIH Public Access; 2016;196(6):1764. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2016.06.091.
Beveridge TS, Fournier DE, Groh AMR, Johnson M, Power NE, Allman BL. The anatomy of the infrarenal lumbar splanchnic nerves in human cadavers: implications for retroperitoneal nerve‐sparing surgery. J Anat. Wiley-Blackwell; 2018;232(1):124. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOA.12721.
Colleselli K, Poisel S, Schachtner W, Bartsch G. Nerve-preserving bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: anatomical study and operative approach. J Urol. No longer published by Elsevier; 1990;144(2):293–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)39435-1.
Aufderklamm S, Todenhöfer T, Hennenlotter J, Gakis G, Mischinger J, Mundhenk J, et al. [Post-chemotherapy laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in low volume residual germ cell cancer: a technique to reduce morbidity]. Urologe A; 2013;52(8):1097–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00120-013-3133-5.
Mittakanti HR, Porter JR. Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: feasibility and latest outcomes. Curr Opin Urol. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2019;29(2):173–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000582.
Kenney PA, Tuerk IA. Complications of laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer. World J Urol. 2008;26(6):561–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-008-0299-3.
Umbreit EC, McIntosh AG, Suk-ouichai C, Segarra LA, Holland LC, Fellman BM, et al. Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy among patients with germ cell tumors using validated grading classifications. Cancer. 2020;126(22):4878–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.33051.
Yarmohammadi H, Schilsky J, Durack JC, Brody LA, Asenbaum U, Velayati S, et al. Treatment of Chylous Ascites with Peritoneovenous Shunt (Denver Shunt) following retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with urological malignancies: update of efficacy and predictors of complications. J Urol. 2020;204(4):818–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001121.
Evans JG, Spiess PE, Kamat AM, Wood CG, Hernandez M, Pettaway CA, et al. Chylous ascites after post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: review of the M D. Anderson experience. J Urol. 2006;176(4 Pt 1):1463–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2006.06.016.
Cary C, Foster RS, Masterson TA. Complications of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Urol Clin North Am. 2019;46(3):429–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UCL.2019.04.012.
Subramanian VS, Nguyen CT, Stephenson AJ, Klein EA. Complications of open primary and post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Urol Oncol. 2010;28(5):504–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLONC.2008.10.026.
Cary C, Masterson TA, Bihrle R, Foster RS. Contemporary trends in postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: additional procedures and perioperative complications. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(9):389.e15-389.e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLONC.2014.07.013.
Groeben C, Koch R, Nestler T, Kraywinkel K, Borkowetz A, Wenzel S, et al. Centralization tendencies of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer in Germany? A total population-based analysis from 2006 to 2015. World J Urol. 2020;38(7):1765–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-019-02972-8.
Heidenreich A, Albers P, Hartmann M, Kliesch S, Köhrmann KU, Krege S, et al. Complications of primary nerve sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis: experience of the German Testicular Cancer Study Group. J Urol. Wolters KluwerPhiladelphia, PA; 2003;169(5):1710–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000060960.18092.54.
Notarfrancesco M, Fankhauser CD, Lorch A, Ardizzone D, Helnwein S, Hoch D, et al. Perioperative complications and oncological outcomes of post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with germ cell cancer at two high-volume university centres in Switzerland – a retrospective chart review. Swiss Med Wkly. NLM (Medline); 2023;153(4):40053–40053. https://doi.org/10.57187/SMW.2023.40053.
Ruf CG, Krampe S, Matthies C, Anheuser P, Nestler T, Simon J, et al. Major complications of post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in a contemporary cohort of patients with testicular cancer and a review of the literature. World J Surg Oncol. NLM (Medline); 2020;18(1):253. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12957-020-02032-1/TABLES/5.
Williams SB, Kacker R, Steele GS, Richie JP. Primary vs. post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in patients with presence of teratoma at orchiectomy. Urol Oncol: Seminars Orig Investig. Elsevier; 2012;30(1):60–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLONC.2009.12.006.
Baniel J, Foster RS, Rowland RG, Bihrle R, Donohue JP. Complications of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Urol. 1994;152(2):424–7.
Baniel J, Foster RS, Rowland RG, Bihrle R, Donohue JP. Complications of post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Urol. 1995;153(3):976–80.
Ge S, Gan L, Meng C, Li K, Wang Z, Zeng Z, et al. Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for low-stage (stage I/II) testicular germ cell tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2023;109(4). https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000321. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine the outcomes related to the frequency of complications between open and laparoscopic RPLND, affirming the safety of laparoscopic approaches in patients with TC.
Rassweiler JJ, Scheitlin W, Heidenreich A, Laguna MP, Janetschek G. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: does it still have a role in the management of clinical stage I nonseminomatous testis cancer? A European Perspective. Eur Urol. Elsevier; 2008;54(5):1004–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2008.08.022.
Grenabo Bergdahl A, Månsson M, Holmberg G, Fovaeus M. Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre. BJUI Compass 2022;3(5):363–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/BCO2.149. This study provides data on the incidence of complications following robotic RPLND, affirming the safety of this approach.
Bhanvadia R, Ashbrook C, Bagrodia A, Lotan Y, Margulis V, Woldu S. Population-based analysis of cost and peri-operative outcomes between open and robotic primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for germ cell tumors. World J Urol. 2021;39(6):1977–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-020-03403-9.
Li R, Duplisea JJ, Petros FG, González GMN, Tu SM, Karam JA, et al. Robotic postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(4):651–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EUO.2019.01.014.
Wells H, Hayes MC, O’Brien T, Fowler S. Contemporary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for testis cancer in the UK - a national study. BJU Int. 2017;119(1):91–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.13569.
Harris KT, Gorin MA, Ball MW, Pierorazio PM, Allaf ME. A comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. BJU Int. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015;116(6):920–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.13121.
Xu Y, Li H, Wang B, Gu L, Gao Y, Fan Y, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I non-seminomatous germ cell tumor of testis: a comparative analysis. Urol J. 2021;18(6):618–22. https://doi.org/10.22037/UJ.V18I.6629.
Fankhauser CD, Afferi L, Stroup SP, Rocco NR, Olson K, Bagrodia A, et al. Minimally invasive retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for men with testis cancer: a retrospective cohort study of safety and feasibility. World J Urol. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; 2022;40(6):1505–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-022-03974-9/METRICS.
Gerdtsson A, Håkansson U, Törnblom M, Jancke G, Negaard HFS, Glimelius I, et al. Surgical complications in postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminoma germ cell tumour: a population-based study from the Swedish Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(3):382–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EUO.2019.08.002.
Steiner H, Leonhartsberger N, Stoehr B, Peschel R, Pichler R. Postchemotherapy laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for low-volume, stage II, nonseminomatous germ cell tumor: first 100 patients. Eur Urol. 2013;63(6):1013–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2012.09.036.
Notarfrancesco M, Fankhauser CD, Lorch A, Ardizzone D, Helnwein S, Hoch D, et al. Perioperative complications and oncological outcomes of post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with germ cell cancer at two high-volume university centres in Switzerland - a retrospective chart review. Swiss Med Wkly. 2023;153:40053. https://doi.org/10.57187/SMW.2023.40053.
Cresswell J, Scheitlin W, Gozen A, Lenz E, Teber D, Rassweiler J. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection combined with adjuvant chemotherapy for pathological stage II disease in nonseminomatous germ cell tumours: a 15-year experience. BJU Int. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008;102(7):844–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1464-410X.2008.07754.X.
Nicolai N, Cattaneo F, Biasoni D, Catanzaro M, Torelli T, Zazzara M, et al. Laparoscopic postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection can be a standard option in defined nonseminomatous germ cell tumor patients. https://home.liebertpub.com/end. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA ; 2016;30(10):1112–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/END.2016.0458.
Beck SDW, Bey AL, Bihrle R, Foster RS. Ejaculatory status and fertility rates after primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Urol. Wolters Kluwer Philadelphia, PA; 2010;184(5):2078–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2010.06.146.
Miki T, Mizutani Y, Nakamura T, Kawauchi A, Nagahara A, Nonomura N, et al. Post-chemotherapy nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for advanced germ cell tumor. Int J Urol. 2009;16(4):379–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1442-2042.2009.02251.X.
Guner E, Seker KG. La relación albúmina/globulina preoperatoria como factor pronóstico en pacientes con cáncer testicular. Actas Urol Esp. Elsevier Doyma; 2020;44(7):469–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACURO.2020.03.011.
Williams SB, Kacker R, Winston D, Bahnson E, Steele GS, Richie JP. Predictors of positive retroperitoneal lymph nodes in patients with high risk testicular cancer. J Urol. Wolters KluwerPhiladelphia, PA; 2011;186(6):2245–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2011.07.101. The article outlines established factors that significantly elevate the probability of detecting cancer cells in lymph nodes in individuals with TC..
Gorgel SN, Akin Y, Koc EM, Kose O, Ozcan S, Yilmaz Y. Impact of increased aspartate aminotransferase to alanine aminotransferase (De Ritis) ratio in prognosis of testicular cancer. Investig Clin Urol. Korean Urological Association; 2019;60(3):169. https://doi.org/10.4111/ICU.2019.60.3.169. The article presents the findings of a study that assesses the impact of the De Ritis ratio on the likelihood of metastases in lymph nodes in TC..
Olcucu MT, Karamik K, Yilmaz K, Okuducu Y, Cakir S, Ates M. Preoperative inflammation markers and De Ritis ratio in predicting clinical presentation and prognosis of patients with testicular germ cell tumors. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2020;30(10):1041–6. https://doi.org/10.29271/JCPSP.2020.10.1041.
Finelli A. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: long-term oncologic outcomes. Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18(2):180–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e3282f4a880.
Mano R, Di Natale R, Sheinfeld J. Current controversies on the role of retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for testicular cancer. Urol Oncol: Seminars Orig Investig. 2019;37(3):209–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.09.009.
Thompson RH, Carver BS, Bosl GJ, Bajorin D, Motzer R, Feldman D, et al. Evaluation of lymph node counts in primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Cancer. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010;116(22):5243–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.25266.
Mottaran A, Ercolino A, Bianchi L, Piazza P, Manes F, Amirhassankhani S, et al. Twenty years’ experience in retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer in a tertiary referral center. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023;59(1):133. https://doi.org/10.3390/MEDICINA59010133.
Fankhauser CD, Afferi L, Stroup SP, Rocco NR, Olson K, Bagrodia A, et al. Minimally invasive retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for men with testis cancer: a retrospective cohort study of safety and feasibility. World J Urol 2022;40(6):1505–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-022-03974-9. This article details the safety and oncological outcomes of minimally invasive RPLND for TC through a retrospective multi-center cohort study.
Supron AD, Cheaib JG, Biles MJ, Schwen Z, Allaf M, Pierorazio PM. Primary robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection following orchiectomy for testicular germ cell tumors: a single-surgeon experience. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(2):309–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11701-020-01107-1.
Rocco NR, Stroup SP, Abdul-Muhsin HM, Marshall MT, Santomauro MG, Christman MS, et al. Primary robotic RLPND for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: a two-center analysis of intermediate oncologic and safety outcomes. World J Urol. 2020;38(4):859–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-019-02900-W.
Pearce SM, Golan S, Gorin MA, Luckenbaugh AN, Williams SB, Ward JF, et al. Safety and early oncologic effectiveness of primary robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):476–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2016.05.017.
Nakamura T, Kawauchi A, Oishi M, Ueda T, Shiraishi T, Nakanishi H, et al. Post-chemotherapy laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is feasible for stage IIA/B non-seminoma germ cell tumors. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016;21(4):791–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10147-015-0934-0.
Hiester A, Nini A, Fingerhut A, Siemer RG, Winter C, Albers P, et al. Preservation of ejaculatory function after postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-RPLND) in patients with testicular cancer: template vs. bilateral resection. Front Surg 2019;5. https://doi.org/10.3389/FSURG.2018.00080.
Nowroozi M, Ayati M, Arbab A, Jamshidian H, Ghorbani H, Niroomand H, et al. Postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with nonseminomatous testicular cancer: a single center experiences. Nephrourol Mon. Brieflands; 2015;7(5):27343. https://doi.org/10.5812/NUMONTHLY.27343.
Oldenburg J, Alfsen GC, Lien HH, Aass N, Wæhre H, Fosså SD. Postchemotherapy retroperitoneal surgery remains necessary in patients with nonseminomatous testicular cancer and minimal residual tumor masses. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(17):3310–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.03.184.
Busch J, Magheli A, Erber B, Friedersdorff F, Hoffmann I, Kempkensteffen C, et al. Laparoscopic and open postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with advanced testicular cancer--a single center analysis. BMC Urol 2012;12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-12-15.
Luz MA, Kotb AF, Aldousari S, Brimo F, Tanguay S, Kassouf W, et al. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for residual masses after chemotherapy in nonseminomatous germ cell testicular tumor. World J Surg Oncol. 2010;8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-8-97.
Heidenreich A, Pfister D, Witthuhn R, Thüer D, Albers P. Postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in advanced testicular cancer: radical or modified template resection. Eur Urol. 2009;55(1):217–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2008.09.027.
Ehrlich Y, Yossepowitch O, Kedar D, Baniel J. Distribution of nodal metastases after chemotherapy in nonseminomatous testis cancer: a possible indication for limited dissection. BJU Int. 2006;97(6):1221–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1464-410X.2006.06167.X.
Singh P, Yadav S, Mahapatra S, Seth A. Outcomes following retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in postchemotherapy residual masses in advanced testicular germ cell tumors. Indian J Urol. 2016;32(1):40–4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.173102.
Tanaka T, Kitamura H, Kunishima Y, Takahashi S, Takahashi A, Masumori N, et al. Modified and bilateral retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: peri- and postoperative complications and therapeutic outcome. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2006;36(6):381–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/JJCO/HYL026.
Spiess PE, Brown GA, Liu P, Tu SM, Tannir NM, Evans JG, et al. Recurrence pattern and proposed surveillance protocol following post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Urol. 2007;177(1):131–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2006.08.092.
Ariffin NA, Nason GJ, Omer SI, Considine SW, Sweeney P, Power DG. Post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with non-seminomatous germ cell tumour (NSGCT). Ir Med J. 2017;110(10):647–647.
Daneshmand S, Cary C, Masterson T, Einhorn L, Adra N, Boorjian SA, et al. Surgery in early metastatic seminoma: a phase II trial of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular seminoma with limited retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(16):3009–18. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.00624.
Cho JS, Kaimakliotis HZ, Cary C, Masterson TA, Beck S, Foster R. Modified retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for post-chemotherapy residual tumour: a long-term update. BJU Int. 2017;120(1):104–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.13844.
El Sayed S, Grando JPS, De Almeida SHM, Mortati Neto N, Moreira HA. Post-chemotherapy residual mass in non-seminomatous testicular cancer. The role of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Int Braz J Urol. 2004;30(5):384–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-55382004000500005.
Calestroupat JP, Sanchez-Salas R, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Galiano M, Smyth G, et al. Postchemotherapy laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in nonseminomatous germ-cell tumor. J Endourol. 2009;23(4):645–50. https://doi.org/10.1089/END.2008.0423.
Antonelli L, Ardizzone D, Ravi P, Bagrodia A, Mego M, Daneshmand S, et al. Risk of residual cancer after complete response following first-line chemotherapy in men with metastatic non-seminomatous germ cell tumour and International Germ Cell Cancer Cooperative Group intermediate/poor prognosis: a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer Eur J Cancer. 2023;182:144–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJCA.2022.12.032.
Eggener SE, Carver BS, Loeb S, Kondagunta GV, Bosl GJ, Sheinfeld J. Pathologic findings and clinical outcome of patients undergoing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection after multiple chemotherapy regimens for metastatic testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2007;109(3):528–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.22440.
Raja A, Malik K, Kathiresan N, Radhakrishnan V. Nerve-sparing Postchemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection (PC RPLND) for nonseminomatous germ cell tumour: experience from a tertiary cancer centre. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2021;12(2):374–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13193-021-01313-9.
Kalemci S, Kizilay F, Ergun KE, Aliyev B, Simsir A. Postchemotherapy retroperitoneal residual mass resection for germ cell testicular tumors: a single-center experience. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2022;68(4):524–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20211247.
Kimura Y, Nakamura T, Kawauchi A, Kawabata G, Hongo F, Miki T. Post-chemotherapy nerve-sparing laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in stage IIB testicular cancer. Int J Urol. 2013;20(8):837–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJU.12072.
Aufderklamm S, Todenhöfer T, Hennenlotter J, Gakis G, Mischinger J, Mundhenk J, et al. Bilateral laparoscopic postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection in nonseminomatous germ cell tumors–a comparison to template dissection. J Endourol. 2013;27(7):856–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/END.2012.0648.
Gaya JM, Palou J, Peña JA, Rosales A, Maroto P, Sullivan I, et al. ¿Existe un límite para el abordaje laparoscópico de la masa residual retroperitoneal posquimioterapia? Actas Urol Esp. Elsevier Doyma; 2015;39(4):264–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACURO.2014.10.008.
Arai Y, Kaiho Y, Yamada S, Saito H, Mitsuzuka K, Yamashita S, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection after chemotherapy for nonseminomatous testicular germ-cell tumor: surgical and oncological outcomes. Int Urol Nephrol. Springer; 2012;44(5):1389–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11255-012-0195-Z/METRICS.
Maldonado-Valadez R, Schilling D, Anastasiadis AG, Sturm W, Stenzl A, Corvin S. Post-chemotherapy laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection in testis cancer patients. J Endourol. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2 Madison Avenue Larchmont, NY 10538 USA ; 2008;21(12):1501–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/END.2006.0441.
Albqami N, Janetschek G. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection in the management of clinical stage I and II testicular cancer. https://home.liebertpub.com/end. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2 Madison Avenue Larchmont, NY 10538 USA ; 2005;19(6):683–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/END.2005.19.683.
Palese MA, Su LM, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection after chemotherapy. Urology. Elsevier; 2002;60(1):130–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01670-9.
Islamoğlu E, Özsoy Ç, Anil H, Aktaş Y, Ateş M, Savaş M. Post-chemotherapy robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in non-seminomatous germ cell tumor of testis: feasibility and outcomes of initial cases. Turk J Urol. Turkish Association of Urology; 2019;45(2):113. https://doi.org/10.5152/TUD.2018.99390.
Tamhankar AS, Patil SR, Ojha SP, Ahluwalia P, Gautam G. Therapeutic supine robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for post-chemotherapy residual masses in testicular cancer: technique and outcome analysis of initial experience. J Robot Surg. Springer London; 2019;13(6):747–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11701-018-00903-0/METRICS.
Kamel MH, Littlejohn N, Cox M, Eltahawy EA, Davis R. Post-chemotherapy robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: institutional experience. https://home.liebertpub.com/end. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA ; 2016;30(5):510–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/END.2015.0673.
Stepanian S, Patel M, Porter J. Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: evolution of the technique. Eur Urol. Elsevier; 2016;70(4):661–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2016.03.031.
Singh A, Chatterjee S, Bansal P, Bansal A, Rawal S. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: feasibility and outcome in postchemotherapy residual mass in testicular cancer. Indian J Urol. Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications; 2017;33(4):304. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJU.IJU_8_17.
Kordan Y, Köseoğlu E, Esen B, Özkan A, Kiremit MC, Kılıç M, et al. Postchemotherapy robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumors in the lateral decubitus position: oncological and functional outcomes. World J Urol. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; 2023;41(4):1101–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-023-04329-8/METRICS.
Abdul-Muhsin H, Rocco N, Navaratnam A, Woods M, L’Esperance J, Castle E, et al. Outcomes of post-chemotherapy robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer: multi-institutional study. World J Urol. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; 2021;39(10):3833–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-021-03712-7/METRICS. The article evaluates outcomes in TC patients undergoing post-chemotherapy robot-assisted RPLND through retrospective analysis.
Ghoreifi A, Mitra AP, McClintock G, Baky F, McDowell Z, Lavallée E, et al. Robotic post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: a multicenter collaborative study. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. Elsevier; 2023;41(2):111.e7–111.e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLONC.2022.11.006.
Rabbani F, Sheinfeld J, Farivar-Mohseni H, Leon A, Rentzepis MJ, Reuter VE, et al. Low-volume nodal metastases detected at retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for testicular cancer: pattern and prognostic factors for relapse. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(7):2020–5. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.7.2020.
Stephenson AJ, Bosl GJ, Motzer RJ, Kattan MW, Stasi J, Bajorin DF, et al. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: impact of patient selection factors on outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2781–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.07.132.
Kondagunta GV, Sheinfeld J, Mazumdar M, Mariani TV, Bajorin D, Bacik J, et al. Relapse-free and overall survival in patients with pathologic stage II nonseminomatous germ cell cancer treated with etoposide and cisplatin adjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(3):464–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.07.178.
Stephenson AJ, Bosl GJ, Bajorin DF, Stasi J, Motzer RJ, Sheinfeld J. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with low stage testicular cancer with embryonal carcinoma predominance and/or lymphovascular invasion. J Urol. 2005;174(2):557–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000165163.03805.37.
Steiner H, Zangerl F, Stöhr B, Granig T, Ho H, Bartsch G, et al. Results of bilateral nerve sparing laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. J Urol. 2008;180(4):1348–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2008.06.040.
Nielsen ME, Lima G, Schaeffer EM, Porter J, Cadeddu JA, Tuerk I, et al. Oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic RPLND in treatment of clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. Urology. 2007;70(6):1168–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2007.08.041.
Böhlen D, Borner M, Sonntag RW, Fey MF, Studer UE. Long-term results following adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with clinical stage I testicular nonseminomatous malignant germ cell tumors with high risk factors. J Urol. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1999;161(4):1148–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)61615-X.
EAU Guidelines. Edn. In: Proceedings of the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023, Milan, Italy, 10–13 March 2023. Arnhem, The Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office; 2023.
Stephenson A, Eggener SE, Bass EB, Chelnick DM, Daneshmand S, Feldman D, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of early stage testicular cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. Wolters Kluwer Philadelphia, PA; 2019;202(2):272–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000318.
Oldenburg J, Berney DM, Bokemeyer C, Climent MA, Daugaard G, Gietema JA, et al. Testicular seminoma and non-seminoma: ESMO-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up ☆. Annals of Oncology. Elsevier Ltd; 2022;33(4):362–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNONC.2022.01.002.
Joice GA, Rowe SP, Gorin MA, Pierorazio PM. Molecular imaging for evaluation of viable testicular cancer nodal metastases. Curr Urol Rep. Current Medicine Group LLC 1; 2018;19(12):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11934-018-0863-3/METRICS.
[En ligne]. National Comprehensive Cancer Network - Home [cité le 12 septembre 2023]. Disponible: https://www.nccn.org/.
Pierre T, Selhane F, Zareski E, Garcia C, Fizazi K, Loriot Y, et al. The role of CT in the staging and follow-up of testicular tumors: baseline, recurrence and pitfalls. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/CANCERS14163965.
Hudolin T, Kastelan Z, Knezevic N, Goluza E, Tomas D, Coric M. Correlation between retroperitoneal lymph node size and presence of metastases in nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Int J Surg Pathol. 2012;20(1):15–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066896911431452.
Lien HH, Stenwig AE, Ous S, Fosså SD. Influence of different criteria for abnormal lymph node size on reliability of computed tomography in patients with non-seminomatous testicular tumor. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1986;27(2):199–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/028418518602700212.
Stomper PC, Fung CY, Socinski MA, Jochelson MS, Garnick MB, Richie JP. Detection of retroperitoneal metastases in early-stage nonseminomatous testicular cancer: analysis of different CT criteria. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;149(6):1187–90. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.149.6.1187.
Hilton S, Herr HW, Teitcher JB, Begg CB, Castellino RA. CT detection of retroperitoneal lymph node metastases in patients with clinical stage I testicular nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: assessment of size and distribution criteria. American Public Health Association; 2013;169(2):521–5. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.169.2.9242768.
Kreydin EI, Barrisford GW, Feldman AS, Preston MA. Testicular cancer: what the radiologist needs to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1215–25. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10319.
Larsen SKA, Agerbæk M, Jurik AG, Pedersen EM. Ten years of experience with MRI follow-up of testicular cancer stage I: a retrospective study and an MRI protocol with DWI. Acta Oncol 2020;59(11):1374–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2020.1794035.
Tasu JP, Faye N, Eschwege P, Rocher L, Bléry M. Imaging of burned-out testis tumor: five new cases and review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22(5):515–21. https://doi.org/10.7863/JUM.2003.22.5.515.
Mearini L, Nunzi E, Di Biase M, Silvi E, Sabatini I, Porena M. Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in advanced stage disease. Urol Int. S. Karger AG; 2016;97(4):380–5. https://doi.org/10.1159/000450924.
Laukka M, Mannisto S, Beule A, Kouri M, Blomqvist C. Comparison between CT and MRI in detection of metastasis of the retroperitoneum in testicular germ cell tumors: a prospective trial. Acta Oncol. 2020;59(6):660–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2020.1725243.
Ellis JH, Bies JR, Kopecky KK, Klatte EC, Rowland RG, Donohue JP. Comparison of NMR and CT imaging in the evaluation of metastatic retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy from testicular carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1984;8(4):709–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-198408000-00023.
Schoch J, Haunschild K, Strauch A, Nestler K, Schmelz H, Paffenholz P, et al. German specialists treating testicular cancer follow different guidelines with resulting inconsistency in assessment of retroperitoneal lymph-node metastasis: clinical implications and possible corrective measures. World J Urol. Springer; 2023;41(5):1353. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-023-04364-5.
Tandstad T, Ståhl O, Håkansson U, Wahlqvist R, Klepp O, Cavallin-Ståhl E, et al. The SWENOTECA group: a good example of continuous binational and multidisciplinary collaboration for patients with testicular cancer in Sweden and Norway. Scand J Urol. 2016;50(1):9–13. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2015.1059360.
Padhani AR, Liu G, Mu-Koh D, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, Takahara T, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia. 2009;11(2):102–25. https://doi.org/10.1593/NEO.81328.
Honecker F, Aparicio J, Berney D, Beyer J, Bokemeyer C, Cathomas R, et al. ESMO Consensus Conference on testicular germ cell cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology. Elsevier; 2018;29(8):1658–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/ANNONC/MDY217.
Nanni C, Zanoni L, Fanti S. Nuclear medicine in urological cancers: what is new? Future Oncol. 2014;10(13):2061–72. https://doi.org/10.2217/FON.14.87.
De Santis M, Pont J. The role of positron emission tomography in germ cell cancer. World J Urol. Springer; 2004;22(1):41–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-004-0403-2/METRICS.
Kollmannsberger C, Oechsle K, Dohmen BM, Pfannenberg A, Bares R, Claussen CD, et al. Prospective comparison of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with conventional assessment by computed tomography scans and serum tumor markers for the evaluation of residual masses in patients with nonseminomatous germ cell carcinoma. Cancer. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2002;94(9):2353–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.10494.
Nuutinen JM, Leskinen S, Elomaa I, Minn H, Varpula M, Solin O, et al. Detection of residual tumours in postchemotherapy testicular cancer by FDG-PET. European Journal of Cancer Part A. Elsevier; 1997;33(8):1234–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(97)00111-1.
Stephens AW, Gonin R, Hutchins GD, Einhorn LH. Positron emission tomography evaluation of residual radiographic abnormalities in postchemotherapy germ cell tumor patients. Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2016;14(5):1637–41. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.5.1637.
de Wit M, Brenner W, Hartmann M, Kotzerke J, Hellwig D, Lehmann J, et al. [18F]-FDG-PET in clinical stage I/II non-seminomatous germ cell tumours: results of the German multicentre trial. Annals of Oncology. Elsevier; 2008;19(9):1619–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn170.
Huddart RA, O’Doherty MJ, Padhani A, Rustin GJS, Mead GM, Joffe JK, et al. 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the prediction of relapse in patients with high-risk, clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: preliminary report of MRC trial TE22 - The NCRI testis tumour clinical study group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2007;25(21):3090–5. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.09.3831.
Xia L, Venegas OG, Predina JD, Singhal S, Guzzo TJ. Intraoperative molecular imaging for post-chemotherapy robot-assisted laparoscopic resection of seminoma metastasis: a case report. Clin Genitourin Cancer. Elsevier Inc.; 2017;15(1):e61–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.09.007.
Alongi P, Evangelista L, Caobelli F, Spallino M, Gianolli L, Midiri M, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in recurrent germinal tumor carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(1):85–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00259-017-3811-4.
Woldu SL, Meng X, Wong D, Baky F, Margulis V, Xi Y, et al. Performance characteristics of 18F-fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computed tomography prior to retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Can Urol Assoc J. 2022;16(3). https://doi.org/10.5489/CUAJ.7317.
Andriole GL, Kostakoglu L, Chau A, Duan F, Mahmood U, Mankoff DA, et al. The impact of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluciclovine on the treatment of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: results from the LOCATE trial. J Urol. 2019;201(2):322–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2018.08.050.
Nanni C, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, Boschi S, Borghesi M, Zanoni L, et al. 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT for the detection of prostate cancer relapse: a comparison to 11C-choline PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(8):e386-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000000849.
Harisinghani MG, Saksena M, Ross RW, Tabatabaei S, Dahl D, McDougal S, et al. A pilot study of lymphotrophic nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging technique in early stage testicular cancer: a new method for noninvasive lymph node evaluation. Urology. 2005;66(5):1066–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2005.05.049.
Charron CL, Hou J, McFarland MS, Dhanvantari S, Kovacs MS, Luyt LG. Structure-activity study of ghrelin(1–8) resulting in high affinity fluorine-bearing ligands for the ghrelin receptor. J Med Chem. 2017;60(17):7256–66. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.JMEDCHEM.7B00164.
van den Berg NS, Buckle T, KleinJan GH, van der Poel HG, van Leeuwen FWB. Multispectral fluorescence imaging during robot-assisted laparoscopic sentinel node biopsy: a first step towards a fluorescence-based anatomic roadmap. Eur Urol. Elsevier; 2017;72(1):110–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2016.06.012.
Hekman MCH, Rijpkema M, Langenhuijsen JF, Boerman OC, Oosterwijk E, Mulders PFA. Intraoperative imaging techniques to support complete tumor resection in partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol Focus. Elsevier B.V.; 2018;4(6):960–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.008.
Bjurlin MA, McClintock TR, Stifelman MD. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging with intraoperative administration of indocyanine green for robotic partial nephrectomy. Curr Urol Rep. Current Medicine Group LLC 1; 2015;16(4):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11934-015-0495-9/METRICS.
Penna FJ, Freilich DA, Alvarenga C, Nguyen HT. Improving lymph node yield in retroperitoneal lymph node dissection using fluorescent molecular imaging: a novel method of localizing lymph nodes in Guinea pig model. Urology. 2011;78(1):232.e15-232.e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2011.03.004.
Abdul-Muhsin HM, L’Esperance JO, Fischer K, Woods ME, Porter JR, Castle EP. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer. J Surg Oncol. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015;112(7):736–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/JSO.24018.
Cheney SM, Andrews PE, Leibovich BC, Castle EP. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: technique and initial case series of 18 patients. BJU Int. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015;115(1):114–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.12804.
Dogra PN, Singh P, Saini AK, Regmi Subodh K, Singh BG, Nayak B. Robot assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular tumor. Urol Ann. 2013;5(4):223–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.120289.
de Cobelli O, Brescia A, Mazzoleni F, Musi G, Matei DV. A novel “intuitive” surgical technique for right robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for stage I testicular NSGCT. World J Urol 2012 31:3. Springer; 2012;31(3):435–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-012-1006-Y.
Ercole CE, Mir MC, Autorino R, Kaouk JH. Robot assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular tumor. Urol Ann. 2014;6(1):99. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.127037.
Ge S, Zeng Z, Li Y, Gan L, Meng C, Li K, et al. The role of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Surgery. 2023; https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000520. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the safety and efficacy of rRPLND in TC.
Sigg S, Fankhauser CD. The role of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in the treatment of stage II seminoma. Curr Opin Urol. Wolters Kluwer Health; 2023;33(4):245. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000001099.
Hiester A, Che Y, Lusch A, Kuß O, Niegisch G, Lorch A, et al. Phase 2 single-arm trial of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with seminomatous testicular germ cell tumors with clinical stage IIA/B (PRIMETEST). Eur Urol. 2023;84(1):25–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2022.10.021. This study, focusing on primary RPLND in patients with clinical stage IIA/B seminoma, explores the oncological efficacy and surgical safety of RPLND as an experimental treatment aiming to reduce toxicity associated with standard radiotherapy or chemotherapy.
Heidenreich A, Paffenholz P, Nestler T, Pfister DA. Nerve sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in clinical stage IIA/B seminoma: the COTRIMS trial. Am Soc Clin Oncol; 2022;40(6_suppl):418–418. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2022.40.6_SUPPL.418.
Cazzaniga W, Kinsella N, Reid A, Huddart R, Mayer E, Nicol D. Outcomes of minimally invasive retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (Primary MI- RPLND) followed by adjuvant carboplatin (AUC7) for clinical stage IIa/b seminoma. Eur Urol. Elsevier BV; 2023;83:S1065. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(23)00794-7.
Stout TE, Soni SD, Goh AC. Post-chemotherapy robotic bilateral retroperitoneal lymph node dissection using a novel single-dock technique. J Robot Surg. Springer London; 2016;10(4):353–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11701-016-0622-8/METRICS.
Pooleri GK, Bijalwan P, Kesavan R, Philip A, Keechilat P. Robot-assisted supine extraperitoneal retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: a novel approach for template dissection in post-chemotherapy residual mass in non-seminomatous germ cell tumours. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(1):171–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11701-018-0810-9.
Syan-Bhanvadia S, Bazargani ST, Clifford TG, Cai J, Miranda G, Daneshmand S. Midline extraperitoneal approach to retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer: minimizing surgical morbidity. Eur Urol. Elsevier; 2017;72(5):814–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2017.02.024.
Kim P, Syan-Bhanvadia S, Djaladat H, Faber K, Tadros NN, Nichols C, et al. Midline extraperitoneal approach for retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular germ cell tumor. Urology. Elsevier; 2012;80(4):941–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.07.006.
Funding
This research has been supported by a research grant from the Wroclaw Medical University SUBZ.C090.23.080.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Conceptualization, B.M., T.S. and J.K.; literature search: B.M., G.Ś. and W.K.; writing–original draft, B.M., G.Ś., W.L. and K.D.; writing-review, Z.S., J.K. and W.K.; visualization, W.L. and K.D.; editing, Z.S., J.K. and W.K.; supervision, B.M., T.S.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Małkiewicz, B., Świrkosz, G., Lewandowski, W. et al. Lymph Node Dissection in Testicular Cancer: The State of the Art and Future Perspectives. Curr Oncol Rep 26, 318–335 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-024-01511-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-024-01511-y