Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

, Volume 140, Issue 2, pp 243–256 | Cite as

A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on the efficacy of extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma

  • Liang Gao
  • Lu Yang
  • Xiao Lv
  • Siyuan Bu
  • Fan Wan
  • Shengqiang Qian
  • Qiang Wei
  • Ping Han
  • Tianyong Fan
Original Paper



Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) has been performed during radical prostatectomy in nearly all patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma (PCa), while the specific regions that needed to be removed demonstrated bifurcation among urologist. However, clinical studies comparing extended PLND (ePLND) with standard PLND (sPLND) and limited PLND (lPLND) reveal conflicting, or even opposing results.


All controlled trials comparing ePLND with sPLND or lPLND were identified through comprehensive searches of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies were then performed.


Eighteen studies with a total of 8,914 patients were included. Regardless of being compared with sPLND or lPLND, ePLND significantly improved LN retrieval [ePLND vs. sPLND: weighted mean difference (WMD) 11.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 9.91–13.95, p < 0.00001; ePLND vs. lPLND: WMD 8.27, 95 % CI 3.53–13.01, p = 0.0006] and the detection of more LNs positive of metastasis [risk ratio (RR) 3.51, 95 % CI 2.14–5.75, p < 0.00001; RR 3.50, 95 % CI 2.20–5.55, p < 0.00001, respectively]. EPLND decreased the complication rate, but the differences were not statistically significant (RR 1.52, 95 % CI 0.87–2.65, p = 0.14; RR 1.52, 95 % CI 0.67–3.45, p = 0.32, respectively). Operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay and biochemical recurrence (BCR) were statistically insignificant between techniques.


ePLND shows benefits associated with increased LNs yield, LNs positivity, and safety, significantly with no risk of side effects. However, ePLND did not decrease BCR. Additional high-quality, well-designed randomized controlled trials and comparative studies with long-term follow-up results are required to define the optimal procedure for patients with clinically localized PCa.


Extended Lymphadenectomy Meta-analysis Pelvic lymph node dissection Prostatic carcinoma Systematic review 

Supplementary material

432_2013_1574_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1500 kb)


  1. Alekseev B, Nyushko K, Vorobyev N, Kalpinskiy A, Golovaschenko M, Frank G, Andreeva Y, Krasheninnikov A, Chissov V (2012) Expansion of lymph node dissection can enhance survival in patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. Urology 80Google Scholar
  2. Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, Carter HB, Walsh PC (2004) Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 172:1840–1844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arenas LF, Füllhase C, Boemans P, Fichtner J (2010) Detecting lymph nodes metastasis in prostate cancer through extended vs. standard laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy. Aktuellle Urol 41:S10–S14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergstein D, Fischer B, Engel N, Fehr J, Moeckel C, Horton K, John H (2009) Limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomies in robotic radical prostatectomy: conclusions from 193 cases. Eur Urol Suppl 8Google Scholar
  5. Breyer BN, Greene KL, Dall’Era MA, Davies BJ, Kane CJ (2008) Pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer P D 11:320–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, Bianchi M, Sun M, Freschi M, Salonia A, Karakiewicz PI, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2012) Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 61:480–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briganti A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Abdollah F, Montorsi F (2013) Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: the mystery is taking shape. Eur Urol 63:459–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busch J, Stephan C, Herold A, Erber B, Kempkensteffen C, Hinz S, Lein M, Weikert S, Miller K, Magheli A (2012) Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 110:E985–E990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daimon T, Miyajima A, Maeda T, Hattori S, Yasumizu Y, Hasegawa M, Kosaka T, Kikuchi E, Nakagawa K, Oya M (2012) Does pelvic lymph node dissection improve the biochemical relapse-free survival in low-risk prostate cancer patients treated by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? J Endourol 26:1199–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML (2005) The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 173:1121–1125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eden CG, Arora A, Rouse P (2010) Extended vs standard pelvic lymphadenectomy during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 106:537–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eden CG, Zacharakis E, Bott S (2013) The learning curve for laparoscopic extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: implications for compliance with existing guidelines. BJU Int 112:346–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Association of Urology (2013) EAU Guidelines on prostate cancer. Accessed July 2013
  14. Fan X, Lin T, Xu K, Yin Z, Huang H, Dong W, Huang J (2012) Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 62:601–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gakis G, Boorjian SA, Briganti A, Joniau S, Karazanashvili G, Karnes RJ, Mattei A, Shariat SF, Stenzl A, Wirth M, Stief CG (2013) The role of radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection in lymph node-positive prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol  [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  16. Gil-Vernet JM (1996) Prostate cancer: anatomical and surgical considerations. Br J Urol 78:161–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 167:1681–1686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13Google Scholar
  19. Huland H (2006) The case against extended lymph-node dissection for prostate cancer. Nat Clin Pract Urol 3:456–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janetschek G (2007) Can sentinel pelvic lymph node dissection replace extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer? Nat Clin Pract Urol 4:636–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ji J, Yuan H, Wang L, Hou J (2012) Is the impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy in radical prostatectomy related to the disease risk? A single center prospective study. J Surg Res 178:779–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joung JY, Cho IC, Lee KH (2011) Role of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer treatment. Korean J Urol 52:437–445PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jung JH, Seo JW, Lim MS, Lee JW, Chung BH, Hong SJ, Song JM, Rha KH (2012) Extended pelvic lymph node dissection including internal iliac packet should be performed during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg 22:785–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim KH, Lim SK, Kim HY, Shin TY, Lee JY, Choi YD, Chung BH, Hong SJ, Rha KH (2013) Extended vs standard lymph node dissection in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer: a propensity-score-matching analysis. BJU Int 112:216–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klevecka V, Musch M, Roggenbuck U, Stoerkel S, Kroepfl D (2008) The incidence of lymph node metastases in prostate carcinoma depends not only on tumor characteristics but also on surgical performance and extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy. Medicina (Kaunas) 44:8Google Scholar
  26. Kural AR, Tufek I, Keskin S, Atug F, Akpinar H (2011) Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot assisted radical prostatectomy: Comparison of preoperative and postoperative data. Eur Urol Suppl 10Google Scholar
  27. Lavery H, Abaza R (2010) Robotic limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 183Google Scholar
  28. Liedberg F, Kjölhede H, Sundqvist P (2012) Laparoscopic extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for staging can be performed with limited morbidity and short hospital stay in patients with prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 46:332–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindberg C, Davidsson T, Gudjónsson S, Hilmarsson R, Liedberg F, Bratt O (2009) Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: will the previously reported benefits be reproduced in hospitals with lower surgical volumes? Scand J Urol Nephrol 43:437–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liss MA, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Jabaji R, Raheem OA, Kane CJ (2013) Outcomes and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 31:481–488Google Scholar
  31. Masterson TA, Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ, DiBlasio CJ, Fearn PA, Rabbani F, Eastham JA, Scardino PT (2006) The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 175:1320–1325PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matsumoto R, Sakashita S (2011) Prospective study of extended versus limited lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with localized prostate cancer. Hinyokika Kiyo: Acta Urologica Japonica 57:359Google Scholar
  33. Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody JO, Rogers CG, Sammon J, Siddiqui SA, Diaz M (2010) Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol 58:838–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paul A, Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Xylinas E, Gillion N, de la Taille A, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Yiou R, Abbou CC, Salomon L (2010) Oncologic outcome after extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: midterm follow-up of 1115 procedures. Eur Urol 57:267–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, Haynes B, Dawes M (2013) Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Accessed July 2013
  36. Polcari AJ, Hugen CM, Sivarajan G, Woods ME, Paner GP, Flanigan RC, Quek ML (2009) Comparison of open and robot-assisted pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. J Endourol 23:1313–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rincón Mayans A, Zudaire Bergera JJ, Rioja Zuazu J, Zudaire Diaz-Tejeiro B, Barba Abad J, Brugarolas Rosselló X, Rosell Costa D, Berián Polo JM (2008) Pelvic lymph node dissection (extended vs standard) and prostate cancer. Actas Urol Esp 32:879–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schiavina R, Bertaccini A, Franceschelli A, Manferrari F, Vagnoni V, Borghesi M, Morselli-Labate AM, Martorana G (2010) The impact of the extent of lymph-node dissection on biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy in node-negative patients. Anticancer Res 30:2297–2302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Shah J, Truong H, Achim M, Davis J (2010) Is more necessarily better? Standard versus extended pelvic lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 183Google Scholar
  40. Touijer K, Rabbani F, Otero JR, Secin FP, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Guillonneau B (2007) Standard versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in patients with a predicted probability of nodal metastasis greater than 1%. J Urol 178:120–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Touijer K, Secin FP, Cronin AM, Katz D, Bianco F, Vora K, Reuter V, Vickers AJ, Guillonneau B (2009) Oncologic outcome after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 10 years of experience. Eur Urol 55:1014–1019PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Baelen A, Mottet N, Spahn M, Briganti A, Gontero P, Joniau S (2012) Sense and nonsense of an extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Adv Urol. Article Id 983058. doi:10.1155/2012/983058 
  43. Wawroschek F, Wagner T, Hamm M, Weckermann D, Vogt H, Märkl B, Gordijn R, Harzmann R (2003) The influence of serial sections, immunohistochemistry, and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection on the lymph node status in clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 43:132–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weckermann D, Goppelt M, Dorn R, Wawroschek F, Harzmann R (2006) Incidence of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤10 ng/mL and biopsy Gleason score of ≤6, and their influence on PSA progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 97:1173–1178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wells GA, Shea B, O’connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2013) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Accessed July 2013
  46. Wyler SF, Sulser T, Seifert HH, Ruszat R, Forster TH, Gasser TC, Bachmann A (2006) Laparoscopic extended pelvic lymph node dissection for high-risk prostate cancer. Urology 68:883–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yuh BE, Ruel NH, Mejia R, Novara G, Wilson TG (2013) Standardized comparison of robot‐assisted limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 122:81–88Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liang Gao
    • 1
  • Lu Yang
    • 1
  • Xiao Lv
    • 1
  • Siyuan Bu
    • 1
  • Fan Wan
    • 1
  • Shengqiang Qian
    • 1
  • Qiang Wei
    • 1
  • Ping Han
    • 1
  • Tianyong Fan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Urology, West China HospitalSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Department of UrologyPeople’s Hospital of Deyang CityDeyangChina

Personalised recommendations