Advertisement

Oncological outcome of patients treated with spot-specific salvage lymphnode dissection (sLND) for positron-emission tomography (PET)-positive prostate cancer (PCa) relapse

  • Andreas HiesterEmail author
  • Alessandro Nini
  • Günter Niegisch
  • Christian Arsov
  • Hubertus Hautzel
  • Christina Antke
  • Lars Schimmöller
  • Peter Albers
  • Robert Rabenalt
Original Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To report pre-, postoperative and oncological outcomes in patients treated with spot-specific sLND for patients with exclusive nodal recurrence after PCa primary treatment.

Materials and methods

With regard to salvage treatment failure (sTF), 46 consecutive patients, undergoing 52 sLND for nodal recurrence detected by PET/CT scan were stratified in 3 groups (group A: post-sLND PSA nadir < 0.01 ng/ml and in follow-up reaching a value > 0.2 ng/ml, group B: post-sLND PSA nadir > 0.01 ng/ml and in follow-up reaching a value equal to pre-sLND PSA; group C: additional salvage treatment administration). Surgical outcome of patients was analyzed by descriptive statistics (Student‘s t test for continuous variables, Chi-square and Fisher‘s test for categorial ones). Time to sTF of each group was analyzed and compared by Kaplan–Meier method and correlations regarding sTF and pre-sLND PSA, time from PCa primary treatment to PET/CT scan, time from PCa primary treatment to sLND and number of positive PET/CT scan spots were assessed.

Results

Median PSA at PET/CT scan was 2.9 ng/ml (IQR 1.2–6.1). Open and laparoscopic sLND were performed in 40/52 (77%) and 12/52 (23%), respectively. Median number of removed lymph nodes was 6 (IQR 4–13). Histological report was positive for PCa in 39/52 sLND (75%). Median blood loss was 50 ml (IQR 0–50, range 0–600). Median length of hospital stay was 5 days (IQR 4–6). 4 and 7 patients had low-grade (I/II) and high-grade (≥ III) Clavien–Dindo complications, respectively. Readmission rates at 30 and 90 days were 5/52 (9.6%) and 1/52 (2%), respectively. sTF was observed in 2/7 (group A), 12/12 (group B) and 22/22 patients (group C). Median time to sTF in group B and C was 3.5 (IQR 1.7–13.2) and 4 months (IQR 2.0–10), respectively.

Conclusion

Even spot-specific PET/CT sLND harbors a measurable (CD > III) morbidity in 1 out of 7 patients. Only patients with positive histological report and a PSA nadir < 0.01 ng/ml after sLND seem to experience a long-term benefit. Patients with a PSA nadir > 0.01 ng/ml have a delay of systemic treatment of up to 4 months. sLND remains an experimental approach and long-term oncological benefit needs an improved selection of patients.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Nodal recurrence Salvage surgery PET/CT scan 

Notes

Author’s contributions

AH: project development, data collection/management/analysis, manuscript writing. AN: project development, data collection/management/analysis, manuscript writing. GN: manuscript editing, data analysis. CA: manuscript editing, data analysis. HH: data management PET/CT, manuscript editing. CA: data management PET/CT. LS: data management CT; manuscript editing, data collection. PA: manuscript editing, data collection. RR: manuscript editing, data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The current study has been approved by the institutional ethics review board (No. 2014082777).

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Porter CR, Kodama K, Gibbons RP, Correa R Jr, Chun FK, Perrotte P, Karakiewicz PI (2006) 25-year prostate cancer control and survival outcomes: a 40-year radical prostatectomy single institution series. J Urol 176(2):569–574.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mullins JK, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Loeb S (2012) The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol 188(6):2219–2224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nini A, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Suardi N, Cucchiara V, Dell’Oglio P, Cazzaniga W, Luzzago S, Montorsi F, Briganti A (2015) Patterns of clinical recurrence of node-positive prostate cancer and impact on long-term survival. Eur Urol 68(5):777–784.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Leeuwen PJ, Stricker P, Hruby G, Kneebone A, Ting F, Thompson B, Nguyen Q, Ho B, Emmett L (2016) (68) Ga-PSMA has a high detection rate of prostate cancer recurrence outside the prostatic fossa in patients being considered for salvage radiation treatment. BJU Int 117(5):732–739.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Suardi N, Gandaglia G, Gallina A, Di Trapani E, Scattoni V, Vizziello D, Cucchiara V, Bertini R, Colombo R, Picchio M, Giovacchini G, Montorsi F, Briganti A (2015) Long-term outcomes of salvage lymph node dissection for clinically recurrent prostate cancer: results of a single-institution series with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Eur Urol 67(2):299–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heidenreich A, Moul JW, Shariat S, Karnes RJ (2016) Role of salvage lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 26(6):581–589.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suardi N, Briganti A, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Montorsi F (2017) Salvage lymph node dissection for node-only recurrence of prostate cancer: ready for prime time? Eur Urol 71(5):693–694.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N, European Association of U (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 65(2):467–479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Biyani CS, Bjerggaard Jensen J, Roupret M, Truss M (2017) Validation of the Clavien-Dindo grading system in urology by the European Association of Urology Guidelines ad hoc panel. Eur Urol Focus.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.014 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rigatti P, Suardi N, Briganti A, Da Pozzo LF, Tutolo M, Villa L, Gallina A, Capitanio U, Abdollah F, Scattoni V, Colombo R, Freschi M, Picchio M, Messa C, Guazzoni G, Montorsi F (2011) Pelvic/retroperitoneal salvage lymph node dissection for patients treated with radical prostatectomy with biochemical recurrence and nodal recurrence detected by [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Urol 60(5):935–943.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montorsi F, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Suardi N, Pultrone C, De Groote R, Dovey Z, Umari P, Gallina A, Briganti A, Mottrie A (2017) Robot-assisted salvage lymph node dissection for clinically recurrent prostate cancer. Eur Urol 72(3):432–438.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Yuan CY, Briers E, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Cornford P, De Santis M, MacPepple E, Henry AM, Mason MD, Matveev VB, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouviere O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Lam TB, Mottet N, Joniau S (2017) The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 72(1):84–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mandel P, Steuber T, Ahyai S, Kriegmair M, Schiffmann J, Boehm K, Heinzer H, Michl U, Schlomm T, Haese A, Huland H, Graefen M, Tilki D (2016) Salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer: verification of European Association of Urology guideline criteria. BJU Int 117(1):55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chenam A, Yuh B, Zhumkhawala A, Ruel N, Chu W, Lau C, Chan K, Wilson T, Yamzon J (2018) Prospective randomised non-inferiority trial of pelvic drain placement vs no pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 121(3):357–364.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horovitz D, Lu X, Feng C, Messing EM, Joseph JV (2017) Rate of symptomatic lymphocele formation after extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy. J Endourol 31(10):1037–1043.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sogani PC, Watson RC, Whitmore WF Jr (1981) Lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy for urologic cancer. Urology 17(1):39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(4):1681–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Musch M, Klevecka V, Roggenbuck U, Kroepfl D (2008) Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1,380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol 179(3):923–928.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.072 (discussion 928–929) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blackwell RH, Kirshenbaum EJ, Shah AS, Kuo PC, Gupta GN, Turk TMT (2018) Complications of recognized and unrecognized iatrogenic ureteral injury at time of hysterectomy: a population based analysis. J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.067 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loeb S, Partin AW, Schaeffer EM (2010) Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy: do the risks outweigh the benefits? Rev Urol 12(1):20–24Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Porres D, Pfister D, Thissen A, Kuru TH, Zugor V, Buettner R, Knuechel R, Verburg FA, Heidenreich A (2017) The role of salvage extended lymph node dissection in patients with rising PSA and PET/CT scan detected nodal recurrence of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20(1):85–92.  https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giannarini G, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Cucchiara V, Ficarra V, Mirone V, Montorsi F, Briganti A (2018) Will image-guided metastasis-directed therapy change the treatment paradigm of oligorecurrent prostate cancer? Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.021 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fossati N, Suardi N, Gandaglia G, Bravi CA, Robesti D, Soligo M, Karnes RJ, Schmautz M, Heidenreich A, Herlemann A, Gratzke C, Stief C, Battaglia A, Everaerts W, Joniau S, Van Poppel H, Kalz A, Osmonov D, Juenemann K, Rajarubendra N, Gill IS, Mottrie A, Montorsi F, Briganti A (2018) Assessing the under-estimation of nodal tumour burden by 68 Ga-PSMA and 11C-choline PET/CT scan in patients treated with salvage lymph node dissection for nodal recurrence of prostate cancer: a large multi-institutional analysis. Eur Urol Suppl 17(2):e1709–e1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maurer T, Robu S, Schottelius M, Schwamborn K, Rauscher I, van den Berg NS, van Leeuwen FWB, Haller B, Horn T, Heck MM, Gschwend JE, Schwaiger M, Wester HJ, Eiber M (2018) (99 m)Technetium-based prostate-specific membrane antigen-radioguided surgery in recurrent prostate cancer. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.013 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Hiester
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alessandro Nini
    • 1
  • Günter Niegisch
    • 1
  • Christian Arsov
    • 1
  • Hubertus Hautzel
    • 2
  • Christina Antke
    • 2
  • Lars Schimmöller
    • 3
  • Peter Albers
    • 1
  • Robert Rabenalt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Medical FacultyHeinrich Heine University DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical FacultyUniversity of DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical FacultyUniversity of DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations