Skip to main content

The ongoing dilemma in pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy: who should decide and in which patients?

Journal of Robotic Surgery volume 14, pages 549–558 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Pelvic lymph node dissection (pLND) is considered the most reliable method for the detection of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Current clinical guidelines recommend performing pLND in intermediate- and high-risk patients that are defined using different clinical nomograms and different cut-off values. Although the detection of lymph node metastatic disease can identify patients who could benefit from adjuvant therapies and potentially improve prostate cancer-related survival outcomes, so far there has been no level 1 evidence to support this survival benefit. Available retrospective data that suggest oncological benefits are subject to various forms of bias. Furthermore, pLND is not feasible or may be risky in some patient-related conditions, such as morbid obesity and previous history of intraabdominal surgery including organ transplants. In this review, we discuss the current controversies surrounding pLND during robotic-assisted prostatectomy in prostate cancer, specifically the pitfalls in interpretation of restricted evidence suggesting its oncological benefits, and examine the potential influence of patient- and surgeon-related factors that may determine the decision to perform pLND.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Perera M, McGrath S, Sengupta S, Crozier J, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk N (2018) Pelvic lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Nat Rev Urol 15:686–692

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yadav K (2017) Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: an update in testicular malignancies. Clin Transl Oncol 19:793–798

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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, Rouvière 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 72:84–109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fujimoto N, Shiota M, Tomisaki I, Minato A, Yahara K (2019) Reconsideration on clinical benefit of pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Int 103:125–136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, Graefen M, Heidenreich A, Karnes JR, Montorsi F, Studer UE (2009) Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55:1251–1265

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Keegan KA, Cookson MS (2011) Complications of pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 12:203–208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tyritzis SI, Kalampokis N, Grivas N, van der Poel H, Wiklund NP (2019) Robot-assisted extended lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer. Miner Chir 74(1):88–96

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mohler JL, Lee RJ, Antonarakis ES et al (2018) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer version 4. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx

  9. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, Matveev VB, Moldovan PC, van den Bergh RCN, Van den Broeck T, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Cornford P (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, Freedland SJ, Greene K, Klotz LH, Makarov DV, Nelson JB, Rodrigues G, Sandler HM, Taplin ME, Treadwell JR (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options. J Urol 199(4):990–997

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Suardi N, Larcher A, Haese A, Ficarra V, Govorov A, Buffi NM, Walz J, Rocco B, Borghesi M, Steuber T, Pini G, Briganti A, Mottrie AM, Guazzoni G, Montorsi F, Pushkar D, Van Der Poel H, Young Academic Urologists-Robotic Section EAU (2014) Indication for and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis of five European institutions. Eur Urol 66(4):635–643

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chandrasekar T, Goldberg H, Klaassen Z, Sayyid RK, Hamilton RJ, Fleshner NE, Kulkarni GS (2018) Lymphadenectomy in Gleason 7 prostate cancer: adherence to guidelines and effect on clinical outcomes. Urol Oncol 36(1):13.e11–13.e18

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leyh-Bannurah SR, Budäus L, Zaffuto E, Pompe RS, Bandini M, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Schiffmann J, Shariat SF, Fisch M, Chun F, Huland H, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI (2018) Adherence to pelvic lymph node dissection recommendations according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network pelvic lymph node dissection guideline and the D’Amico lymph node invasion risk stratification. Urol Oncol 36(2):81.e17–81.e24

    Google Scholar 

  14. Abdollah F, Abdo A, Sun M, Schmitges J, Tian Z, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Perrotte P, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz PI (2013) Pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: adherence and accuracy of the recent guidelines. Int J Urol 20(4):405–410

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abdollah F, Dalela D, Sood A, Keeley J, Alanee S, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Peabody JO, Menon M (2018) Impact of adjuvant radiotherapy in node-positive prostate cancer patients: the importance of patient selection. Eur Urol 74(3):253–256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, Kiernan M, Crawford D, Wilding G, di’SantAgnese PA, Trump D, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study EST 3886 (2006) Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol 7(6):472–479

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Touijer KA, Mazzola CR, Sjoberg DD, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2014) Long-term outcomes of patients with lymph node metastasis treated with radical prostatectomy without adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. Eur Urol 65(1):20–25

    Google Scholar 

  18. Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Salonia A, Nini A, Moschini M, Sun M, Karakiewicz PI, Shariat SF, Montorsi F, Briganti A (2015) More extensive pelvic lymph node dissection improves survival in patients with node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67(2):212–219

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mandel P, Kriegmair MC, Bogdan K, Boehm K, Budäus L, Graefen M, Huland H, Tilki D (2017) Association between lymph node counts and oncological outcomes in lymph node positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus 3(2–3):248–255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zareba P, Eastham J, Scardino PT, Touijer K (2017) Contemporary patterns of care and outcomes of men found to have lymph node metastases at the time of radical prostatectomy. J Urol 198(5):1077–1084

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Vollstedt A, Hyams E (2017) Extent of lymphadenectomy at time of prostatectomy: an evidence-based approach. Urol Clin N Am 44(4):587–595

    Google Scholar 

  22. Choo MS, Kim M, Ku JH, Kwak C, Kim HH, Jeong CW (2017) Extended versus standard pelvic lymph node dissection in radical prostatectomy on oncological and functional outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 24(7):2047–2054

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. García-Perdomo HA, Correa-Ochoa JJ, Contreras-García R, Daneshmand S (2018) Effectiveness of extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in the survival of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cent Eur J Urol 71(3):262–269

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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 Tech A 22(8):785–790

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(2):216–223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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(3):481–488

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mistretta FA, Boeri L, Grasso AA, Lo Russo V, Albo G, De Lorenzis E, Maggioni M, Palmisano F, Dell’orto P, Bosari S, Rocco B (2017) Extended versus standard pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the role of extended template as an independent predictor of lymph node invasion with comparable morbidity burden. Miner Urol Nefrol 69(5):475–485

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chenam A, Ruel N, Pal S, Barlog J, Lau C, Wilson T, Yuh B (2018) Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. Can J Urol 25(3):9340–9348

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Altok M, Babaian K, Achim MF, Achim GC, Troncoso P, Matin SF, Chapin BF, Davis JW (2018) Surgeon-led prostate cancer lymph node staging: pathological outcomes stratified by robot-assisted dissection templates and patient selection. BJU Int 122(1):66–75

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Preisser F, van den Bergh RCN, Gandaglia G, Ost P, Surcel CI, Sooriakumaran P, Montorsi F, Graefen M, van der Poel H, Taille A, Briganti A, Salomon L, Ploussard G, Tilki D, European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists Working Party on Prostate Cancer (EAU-YAUWP) (2019) Effect of Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection on Oncologic Outcomes in D’Amico Intermediate- and High- Risk Radical Prostatectomy Patients: A Multi-Institutional Study. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000504(Epub ahead of print)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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(2):779–784

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lestingi JFP, Guglielmetti G, Pontes J, Mitre AI, Sarkis A, Bastos DA, Riechelmann R, Mattedi RL, Cordeiro M, Coelho R, Srougi M, Nahas WC (2017) Extended versus limited pelvic lymphadenectomy during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early outcomes from a randomized controlled phase III study. J Clin Oncol 35(15 suppl):5018

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schiavina R, Manferrari F, Garofalo M, Bertaccini A, Vagnoni V, Guidi M, Borghesi M, Baccos A, Morselli-Labate AM, Concetti S, Martorana G (2011) The extent of pelvic lymph node dissection correlates with the biochemical recurrence rate in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 108(8):1262–1268

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Joslyn SA, Konety BR (2006) Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 68(1):121–125

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Preisser F, Bandini M, Marchioni M, Nazzani S, Tian Z, Pompe RS, Fossati N, Briganti A, Saad F, Shariat SF, Heinzer H, Huland H, Graefen M, Tilki D, Karakiewicz PI (2018) Extent of lymph node dissection improves survival in prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy without lymph node invasion. Prostate 78(6):469–475

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N, Warncke SH, Thalmann GN, Krause T, Studer UE (2008) The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol 53(1):118–125

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hu JC, Prasad SM, Gu X, Williams SB, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Choueiri TK, Choi WW, D’Amico AV (2011) Determinants of performing radical prostatectomy pelvic lymph node dissection and the number of lymph nodes removed in elderly men. Urology 77(2):402–406

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lanowska M, Vasiljeva J, Chiantera V, Marnitz S, Schneider A, Rudolph B, Köhler C (2010) Implication of the examining pathologist to meet the oncologic standard of lymph node count after laparoscopic lymphadenectomy. Oncology 79(3–4):161–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Colicchia M, Sharma V, Abdollah F, Briganti A, Jeffrey Karnes R (2017) Therapeutic value of standard versus extended pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 18(7):51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Seetharam Bhat KR, Onol F, Rogers T, Ganapathi HP, Moschovas M, Roof S, Patel VR (2019) Can we predict who will need lymphocele drainage following robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP)? J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01010-4(Epub ahead of print)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel VR (2011) Incidence of lymphoceles after robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int 108(7):1185–1190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A, Haese A, Heidenreich A, Menon M, Sulser T, Tewari AK, Eastham JA (2014) Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 65(1):7–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Morizane S, Honda M, Fukasawa S, Komaru A, Inokuchi J, Eto M, Shimbo M, Hattori K, Kawano Y, Takenaka A (2018) Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy and perioperative outcomes of limited versus extended pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective study in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol 23(3):568–575

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tyritzis SI, Wilderäng U, Lantz ΑW, Steineck G, Hugosson J, Bjartell A, Stranne J, Haglind E, Wiklund NP (2019) Hospital readmissions after limited vs. extended lymph node dissection during open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.07.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Brito J 3rd, Pereira J, Moreira DM, Pareek G, Tucci C, Guo R, Zhang Z, Amin A, Mega A, Renzulli J 2nd, Golijanin D, Gershman B (2018) The association of lymph node dissection with 30-day perioperative morbidity among men undergoing minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21(2):245–251

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cole AP, Björklund J, Folkvaljon Y, Carlsson S, Robinson D, Loeb S, Stattin P, Akre O (2015) Ninety-day perioperative mortality in radical prostatectomy among Swedish men 1998 to 2012. J Urol 193(4S Supplement):e34

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sundi D, Reese AC, Mettee LZ, Trock BJ, Pavlovich CP (2013) Laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy outcomes in obese and extremely obese men. Urology 82(3):600–605

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Porcaro AB, Sebben M, Tafuri A, de Luyk N, Corsi P, Processali T, Pirozzi M, Rizzetto R, Amigoni N, Mattevi D, Cerruto MA, Brunelli M, Novella G, De Marco V, Migliorini F, Artibani W (2019) Body mass index is an independent predictor of Clavien–Dindo grade 3 complications in patients undergoing robot assisted radical prostatectomy with extensive pelvic lymph node dissection. J Robot Surg 13(1):83–89

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Spernat D, Sofield D, Moon D, Louie-Johnsun M, Woo H (2014) Implications of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair on open, laparoscopic, and robotic radical prostatectomy. Prostate Int 2(1):8–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Zeng J, Christiansen A, Pooli A, Qiu F, LaGrange CA (2018) Safety and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant patients: a systematic review. J Endourol 32(10):935–943

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hövels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, Jager GJ, Strum S, Hoogeveen YL, Severens JL, Barentsz JO (2008) The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 63(4):387–395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zarzour JG, Galgano S, McConathy J, Thomas JV, Rais-Bahrami S (2017) Lymph node imaging in initial staging of prostate cancer: an overview and update. World J Radiol 9(10):389–399

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Tan N, Bavadian N, Calais J, Oyoyo U, Kim J, Turkbey IB, Mena E, Davenport MS (2019) Imaging of prostate specific membrane antigen targeted radiotracers for the detection of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 202(2):231–240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Woo S, Ghafoor S, Vargas HA (2019) Contribution of radiology to staging of prostate cancer. Semin Nucl Med 49(4):294–301

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Cao HM, Wan Z, Wu Y, Wang HY, Guan C (2019) Development and internal validation of a novel model and markers to identify the candidates for lymph node metastasis in patients with prostate cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 98(30):e16534

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Walker SM, Knight LA, McCavigan AM, Logan GE, Berge V, Sherif A, Pandha H, Warren AY, Davidson C, Uprichard A, Blayney JK, Price B, Jellema GL, Steele CJ, Svindland A, McDade SS, Eden CG, Foster C, Mills IG, Neal DE, Mason MD, Kay EW, Waugh DJ, Harkin DP, Watson RW, Clarke NW, Kennedy RD (2017) Molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancer presenting with metastatic biology. Eur Urol 72:509–518

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Advent Health Global Robotics Institute, 410 Celebration Place Suite#200, Celebration, 34747, FL, USA

    Fikret Fatih Onol, Seetharam Bhat, Marcio Moschovas, Travis Rogers & Vipul Patel

  2. Associated Medical Professional Urology, Syracuse, NY, USA

    David Albala

Authors
  1. Fikret Fatih Onol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seetharam Bhat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcio Moschovas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Travis Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Albala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vipul Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fikret Fatih Onol.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Fikret F. Onol MD declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Seetharam Bhat MD declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Marcio Moschovas MD declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Travis Rogers MD declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author David Albala MD declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Vipul Patel MD declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Onol, F.F., Bhat, S., Moschovas, M. et al. The ongoing dilemma in pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy: who should decide and in which patients?. J Robotic Surg 14, 549–558 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01041-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01041-x

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
  • Pelvic lymph node dissection
  • Oncological outcomes
  • Complications