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
- 502 Downloads
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.
KeywordsExtended Lymphadenectomy Meta-analysis Pelvic lymph node dissection Prostatic carcinoma Systematic review
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- European Association of Urology (2013) EAU Guidelines on prostate cancer. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/08%20Prostate%20Cancer_LR%20March%2013th%202012.pdf. Accessed July 2013
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Lavery H, Abaza R (2010) Robotic limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 183Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, Haynes B, Dawes M (2013) Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed July 2013
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed July 2013
- 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