Current Urology Reports

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 237–242 | Cite as

Extended lymph node dissection for prostate cancer

  • Stephan Jeschke
  • Fiona C. Burkhard
  • Ramesh Thurairaja
  • Nivedita Dhar
  • Urs E. Studer


Lymph node status is an important determinant for the management of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Given the significant limitations of cross-sectional and functional preoperative imaging in the detection of small metastases, pelvic lymph node dissection remains the only reliable staging method in clinically localized prostate cancer. Although lymph node dissection is a well-established form of staging in prostate cancer, controversy remains about indications and the surgical extent of the procedure. Reported practices vary from omitting pelvic lymph node dissection in low-risk disease to routine pelvic lymph node dissection in all radical prostatectomy patients. This review highlights the recent literature concerning pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer with respect to anatomical extent and oncologic outcome.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Danella JF, deKernion JB, Smith RB, et al.: The contemporary incidence of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer: implications for laparoscopic lymph node dissection. J Urol 1993, 149:1488–1491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petros JA, Catalona WJ: Lower incidence of unsuspected lymph node metastasis in 512 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1992, 147:1574–1575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al.: Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion based on the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006, 98:788–793.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bader P, Spahn M, Huber R, et al.: Limited lymph node dissection in prostate cancer may miss lymph node metastases and determines outcome of apparently pN0 prostate cancer [abstract 55]. Eur Urol 2004, 16(Suppl 3).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joslyn SA, Konety BR: Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 2006, 68:121–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N, et al.: The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol 2008, 53:118–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heidenreich A, von Knobloch R, Varga Z: Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy inpatients undergoing radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: high incidence of lymph node metastases. J Urol 2001, 167:1681–1684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heidenreich A, von Knobloch R, Varga Z, Hofmann R: Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy—data on > 300 cases [abstract 4612]. Proc ASCO 2005, 22:409s.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuhmacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Fleischmann A, Studer UE: Is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary in patients with a serum PSA < 10 ng/ml undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2006, 50:272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weckermann D, Goppelt M, Dorn R, et al.: Incidence of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer, a prostate specific antigen (PSA) level of < or = 10 ng/ml and biopsy Gleason score of < or = 6, and their influence on PSA progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006, 97:1173–1178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al.: Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor database. J Urol 2001, 165:851–856.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhatta-Dhar N, Reuther AM, Zippe C, Klein EA: No difference in six-year biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy in low-risk patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology 2004, 63:528–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolf JS Jr, Cher M, Dall’era M, et al.: The use and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging and fine needle aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1995, 153:993–999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tempany CM, McNeil BJ: Advances in biomedical imaging. JAMA 2001, 285:562–567.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Borley N, Fabrin K, Sriprasad S, et al.: Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection allows significantly more accurate staging in “high-risk” prostate cancer compared to MRI or CT. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2003, 37:382–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al.: Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:2491–2499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Troyer JK, Beckett ML, Wright GL Jr: Location of prostate-specific membrane antigen in the LN CaP prostate carcinoma cell line. Prostate 1997, 30:232–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ponsky LE, Cherullo EE, Starkey R, et al.: Evaluation of preoperative ProstaScint scans in the prediction of nodal disease. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2002, 5:132–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katz AE, Olsson CA, Raffo AJ, et al.: Molecular staging of prostate cancer with the use of an enhanced reverse transcriptase-PCR assay. Urology 1994, 43:765–775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cabanas RM: An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer 1977, 39:456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wawroschek F, Vogt H, Weckermann D, Wagner T, et al.: Radioisotope guided pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. J Urol 2001, 166:1715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE: Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 2002, 168:514–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Olbert P, Hofmann R: Radical pelvic lymphadenectomy in clinically localised prostate cancer: high frequency of atypical metastasis. Eur Urol 2001, 39(Suppl 5):135.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mattei A, Fuechsel F, Warncke S, et al.: Anatomic localization of prostatic sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) according to fusion imaging of SPECT and CT scans after intraprostatic injection of Technetium-99m-Nanocolloid [abstract 1388]. AUA 2006, 2499.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gronau E, Weckermann D, Harzmann R: Sentinel lymph node resection in prostate cancer patients with a PSA higher than 20ng/ml. J Urol 2005, 173:437.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gil-Vernet JM: Prostate cancer: anatomical and surgical considerations. Brit J Urol 1996, 78:161–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raghavaiah NV, Jordan WP: Prostatic lymphography. J Urol 1979, 121:178–181.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wawroschek F, Wagner T, Hamm M, et al.: 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 2003, 43:132–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P: Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: comparison to the extended and modified techniques. J Urol 1997, 158:1891–1894.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clark T, Parekh DJ Cookson MS, et al.: Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003, 69:145–148.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Briganti A, Chun FK-H, Salonia A et al.: Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006, 50:1006–1013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A, et al.: Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy: does it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol 2006, 176:189–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Michl UH, Friedrich MG, Graefen M, et al.: Prediction of postoperative sexual function after nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2006, 176:227–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    El-Bahnasawy MS, El-Assmy A, Dawood A, et al.: Effect of the use of internal iliac artery for renal transplantation on penile vascularity and erectile function: a prospective study. J Urol 2004, 172:2335–2339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aus G, Abbou CC, Bolla M, et al.: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2005, 48:546–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Golimbu M, Provet J, Al-Askari S, Morales P: Radical prostatectomy for stage D1 prostate cancer. Prognostic variables and results of treatment. Urology 1987, 30:427–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Catalona WJ, Miller DR, Kavoussi LR: Intermediate-term survival results in clinically understaged prostate cancer patients following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1988, 140:540–543.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al.: Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999, 281:1591–1597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE: Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure? J Urol 2003, 169:849–854.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Daneshmand S, Quek ML, Stein JP, et al.: Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long-term results. J Urol 2004, 172:2252–2255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, et al.: Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004, 172:1840–1844.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Masterson TA, Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ, et al.: The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006, 175:1320–1324; discussion 1324–1325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ferrari AC, Stone NN, Kurek R, et al.: Molecular load of pathologically occult metastases in pelvic lymph nodes is an independent prognostic marker of biochemical failure after localized prostate cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24:3081–3088.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Serni S, Masieri L, Minervini A, et al.: Cancer progression after anterograde radical prostatectomy for pathologic Gleason score 8 to 10 and influence of concomitant variables. Urology 2006, 67:373–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK: The Will Rogers phenomenon. Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 1985, 312:1604–1608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, et al.: The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2005, 173:1121–1125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Jeschke
  • Fiona C. Burkhard
  • Ramesh Thurairaja
  • Nivedita Dhar
  • Urs E. Studer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Bern, InselspitalBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations