World Journal of Urology

, Volume 33, Issue 11, pp 1689–1694 | Cite as

Robotic-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: frequency of nodal metastases and oncological outcomes

  • Rodrigo A. LedezmaEmail author
  • Edris Negron
  • Aria A. Razmaria
  • Pankaj Dangle
  • Scott E. Eggener
  • Arieh L. Shalhav
  • Gregory P. Zagaja
Original Article



Limited data are available regarding the oncologic efficacy of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) performed during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) for prostate cancer. We aimed to determine the frequency of pelvic lymph node metastasis and oncological outcomes following RALP with PLND in patients who did not receive adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).


We retrospectively reviewed the records of 1740 consecutive patients who underwent RALP and extended PLND. The primary endpoint was biochemical recurrence (BCR). The estimated BCR probability was obtained using the Kaplan–Meier method. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess for predictors of BCR.


One hundred and eight patients (6 %) with positive LNs were identified. The median number of LNs removed was 17 (IQR 11–24), and median follow-up was 26 months (IQR 14–43). Ninety-one (84 %) patients did not receive adjuvant ADT of whom 60 % had BCR with a median time to recurrence of 8 months. The 1- and 3-year BCR-free probability was 42 and 28 %, respectively. Patients with ≤2 LN+ had significantly better biochemical-free estimated probability compared to those with >2 LN+ (p = 0.002). The total number of LN+ (HR = 1.1; 95 % CI 1.01–1.2, p = 0.04) and Gleason 8–10 (HR = 1.96; 95 % CI 1.1–3.4, p = 0.02) were predictors of BCR on multivariate analysis.


Among men with positive lymph nodes at time of robotic prostatectomy, those with two or fewer positive nodes and Gleason <8 exhibited favorable biochemical-free survival without adjuvant therapy.


Prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy Biochemical recurrence Lymph node dissection Robotics 



Prostate cancer


Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy


Pelvic lymph node dissection


Lymph node


Androgen deprivation therapy


Biochemical recurrence


Hazard ratio


Standard deviation


Confidence interval


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

The manuscript entitled “Robotic-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: frequency of nodal metastases and oncological outcomes” was an investigation approved by the Internal Board Review committee of the University of Chicago (IRB number #13-031). Therefore, the manuscript has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. In addition, all patients gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Supplementary material

345_2015_1515_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)
345_2015_1515_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. 1.
    Gervasi LA, Mata J, Easley JD et al (1989) Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate cancer. J Urol 142:332–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH et al (2009) Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55:1251–1265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J (2006) Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol 7:472–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zorn KC, Katz MH, Bernstein A et al (2009) Pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: assessing nodal yield, perioperative outcomes, and complications. Urology 74:296–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liss MA, Lusch A, Morales B et al (2012) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: 5-year oncological and biochemical outcomes. J Urol 188:2205–2210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katz MH, Shikanov S, Sun M et al (2011) Gleason 6 prostate cancer in one or two biopsy cores can harbor more aggressive disease. J Endourol 25:699–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE (2002) Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 168:514–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, Epstein JI et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol 24:39–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ulmer WD, Prasad SM, Kowalczyk KJ et al (2012) Factors associated with the adoption of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in the United States. J Urol 188:775–780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feifer AH, Elkin EB, Lowrance WT et al (2011) Temporal trends and predictors of pelvic lymph node dissection in open or minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Cancer 117:3933–3942PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silberstein JL, Vickers AJ, Power NE et al (2012) Pelvic lymph node dissection for patients with elevated risk of lymph node invasion during radical prostatectomy: comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures. J Endourol 26:748–753PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R (2002) Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 167:1681–1686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ et al (2004) Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 172:1840–1844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Godoy G, von Bodman C, Chade DC et al (2012) Pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: frequency and distribution of nodal metastases in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series. J Urol 187:2082–2086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liss MA, Palazzi K, Stroup SP et al (2013) Outcomes and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 31:481–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE (2003) Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure? J Urol 169:849–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palapattu GS, Allaf ME, Trock BJ et al (2004) Prostate specific antigen progression in men with lymph node metastases following radical prostatectomy: results of long-term followup. J Urol 172:1860–1864CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Siddiqui S et al (2007) Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 178:864–870CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Von Bodman C, Godoy G, Chade DC et al (2010) Predicting biochemical recurrence-free survival for patients with positive pelvic lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 184:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF et al (2009) Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer. A new proposal based on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N+ patients treated with radical prostatectomy, extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 55:261–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo A. Ledezma
    • 1
    Email author
  • Edris Negron
    • 1
  • Aria A. Razmaria
    • 1
  • Pankaj Dangle
    • 1
  • Scott E. Eggener
    • 1
  • Arieh L. Shalhav
    • 1
  • Gregory P. Zagaja
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Urology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Chicago Medical CenterChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations