The impact of extended lymph node dissection versus neoadjuvant therapy with limited lymph node dissection on biochemical recurrence in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis
- 463 Downloads
The optimal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer (Pca) remains to be established. The current guidelines recommend extended pelvic lymph node dissection (e-PLND) for selected intermediate- and high-risk patients treated with RP. However, the indications, optimal extent, and therapeutic benefits of e-PLND remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess whether e-PLND confers an oncological benefit for high-risk Pca compared to neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone and estramustine (LHRH + EMP). The Michinoku Urological Cancer Study Group database contained the data of 2403 consecutive Pca patients treated with RP at four institutes between March 2000 and December 2014. In the e-PLND group, we identified 238 high-risk Pca patients who underwent RP and e-PLND, with lymphatic tissue removal around the obturator and the external iliac regions, and hypogastric lymph node dissection. The neoadjuvant therapy with limited PLND (l-PLND) group included 280 high-risk Pca patients who underwent RP and removal of the obturator node chain between September 2005 and June 2014 at Hirosaki University. The outcome measure was BRFS. The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates for the neoadjuvant therapy with l-PLND group and e-PLND group were 84.9 and 54.7%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The operative time was significantly longer in the e-PLND group compared to that of the neoadjuvant therapy with l-PLND group. Grade 3/4 surgery-related complications were not identified in both groups. Although the present study was not randomized, neoadjuvant LHRH + EMP therapy followed by RP might reduce the risk of biochemical recurrence.
KeywordsHigh-risk prostate cancer Prostatectomy Neoadjuvant therapy Extended lymph node dissection
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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. For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 4.Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, D’Amico AV, Davis BJ, Eastham JA, et al. Prostate cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14:19–30.Google Scholar
- 8.Schiavina R, Bertaccini A, Garofalo M, Concetti S, Brunocilla E, Franceschelli A, et al. The impact of the extent of lymph-node dissection on biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy in node-negative patients. Anticancer Res. 2010;30:1478–9.Google Scholar
- 15.Koie T, Ohyama C, Yamamoto H, Hatakeyama S, Yoneyama T, Hashimoto Y, et al. Safety and effectiveness of neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist plus low-dose estramustine phosphate in high-risk prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm study. Prostate Cancer P D. 2012;15:397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Koie T, Mitsuzuka K, Yoneyama T, Narita S, Kawamura S, Kaiho Y, et al. Neoadjuvant luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone agonist plus low-dose estramustine phosphate improves prostate-specific antigen-free survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20:1018–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar