Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 2047–2054 | Cite as

Extended versus Standard Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Radical Prostatectomy on Oncological and Functional Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Min Soo Choo
  • Myong Kim
  • Ja Hyeon Ku
  • Cheol Kwak
  • Hyeon Hoe Kim
  • Chang Wook JeongEmail author
Urologic Oncology



We evaluated the effect of the extent of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) on oncological and functional outcomes in patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.


Two independent researchers performed a systematic review of radical prostatectomy (RP) with extended PLND (ePLND), and RP with standard (sPLND) or limited PLND (lPLND) in patients with PCa using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and using the terms ‘prostatectomy’, ‘lymph node excision’, and ‘prostatic neoplasm’. The primary outcome was biochemical-free survival, which was analyzed by extracting survival data from the published Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves. In addition, we obtained summarized survival curves by reconstructing the KM data. Secondary outcomes of the recovery of erection and continence were also analyzed.


Nine studies involving over 1554 patients were included, one of which was a randomized controlled trial. The pooled analysis showed a significant difference in biochemical recurrence between ePLND and sPLND (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.56–0.90, p = 0.005), with no significant between-study heterogeneity (I 2 = 37%). From the summary survival curves, it can be observed that the curves for the two groups diverged more and more as a function of time. From the analyses of functional outcomes including only three studies, no statistically significant differences in the recovery of erectile function and continence were observed. No evidence of significant publication bias was found.


In patients with PCa, ePLND could be an oncological benefit; however, a functional compromise cannot be determined.


Radical Prostatectomy Erectile Function Biochemical Recurrence Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Pelvic Plexus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Min Soo Choo, Myong Kim, Ja Hyeon Ku, Cheol Kwak, Hyeon Hoe Kim, and Chang Wook Jeong declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


This research was supported by Grant No 23-2013-0050 from the Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH) Research Fund.


  1. 1.
    Sundi D, Svatek RS, Nielsen ME, Schoenberg MP, Bivalacqua TJ. Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy: is bigger better? Rev Urol. 2014;16(4):159-66.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gandaglia G, Di-Trapani E, Briganti A. Extended lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: a procedure with therapeutic utility. Oncology (Williston Park). 2014;28(7):600–602.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):124-37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wollin DA, Makarov D. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: do more nodes mean better survival? Oncology (Williston Park). 2014;28(7):601-2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;169(1):145-147; discussion 147-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Gallina A, et al. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection does not affect erectile function recovery in patients treated with bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2012;9(8):2187–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Poel HG, Tillier C, de Blok W, van Muilekom E. Extended nodal dissection reduces sexual function recovery after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2012;26(9):1192-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akasu T, Sugihara K, Moriya Y. Male urinary and sexual functions after mesorectal excision alone or in combination with extended lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(10):2779-86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gandaglia G, Trinh QD, Hu JC, et al. The impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on the use and extent of pelvic lymph node dissection in the “post-dissemination” period. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(9):1080-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silberstein JL, Vickers AJ, Power NE, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection for patients with elevated risk of lymph node invasion during radical prostatectomy: comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures. J Endourol. 2012;26(6):748-53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Combescure C, Foucher Y, Jackson D. Meta-analysis of single-arm survival studies: a distribution-free approach for estimating summary survival curves with random effects. Stat Med. 2014;33(15):2521-37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hernan MA. The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):13-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prentice RL, Pettinger M, Anderson GL. Statistical issues arising in the Women’s Health Initiative. Biometrics. 2005;61(4):899–911; discussion 911–841.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1-34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, Carter HB, Walsh PC. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172(5 Pt 1):1840-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim KH, Lim SK, Kim HY, Shin TY, Lee JY, Choi YD, et al. 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. 2013;112(2):216-23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liss MA, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Jabaji R, Raheem OA, Kane CJ. Outcomes and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2013;31(3):481-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schults D, Blank K, Broferick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969-74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analysis. In: Higgins J, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for systematic review of interventions. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jackson D, White IR, Thompson SG. Extending DerSimonian and Laird’s methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2010;29(12):1282-97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S. Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):29-37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matsumoto R, Sakashita S. Prospective study of extended versus limited lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with localized prostate cancer [in Japanese]. Hinyokika Kiyo. 2011;57(7):359-62 (in Japanese).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alekseev B, Nyushko K, Vorobyev N, et al. Expansion of lymph node dissection can enhance survival in patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2012;80(3):S1-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sagalovich D, Calaway A, Srivastava A, Sooriakumaran P, Tewari AK. Assessment of required nodal yield in a high risk cohort undergoing extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and its impact on functional outcomes. BJU Int. 2013;111(1):85-94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Choo MS, Han JH, Lee SH, Kwak C, Kim HH. The impact of anatomic extent of pelvic lymph node dissection on sexual function recovery after nerve-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2014;28(S1):P1-A316.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gil-Vernet JM. Prostate cancer: anatomical and surgical considerations. Br J Urol. 1996;78(2):161-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Inoue S, Shiina H, Arichi N, et al. Identification of lymphatic pathway involved in the spreading of prostate cancer by fluorescence navigation approach with intraoperatively injected indocyanine green. Can Urol Assoc J. 2011;5(4):254-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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(1):118-25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harbin AC, Eun DD. The role of extended pelvic lymphadenectomy with radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(5):208-16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bivalacqua TJ, Pierorazio PM, Gorin MA, Allaf ME, Carter HB, Walsh PC. Anatomic extent of pelvic lymph node dissection: impact on long-term cancer-specific outcomes in men with positive lymph nodes at time of radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2013;82(3):653-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yuh B, Artibani W, Heidenreich A, et al. The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(5):918-27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tewari A, Grover S, Sooriakumaran P, et al. Nerve sparing can preserve orgasmic function in most men after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2012;109(4):596-602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Takenaka A, Leung RA, Fujisawa M, Tewari AK. Anatomy of autonomic nerve component in the male pelvis: the new concept from a perspective for robotic nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2006;24(2):136-43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hatiboglu G, Teber D, Tichy D, et al. Predictive factors for immediate continence after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2016;34(1):113–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stewart LA, Parmar MK. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet. 1993;341(8842):418-22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC, et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(6):523-34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Min Soo Choo
    • 1
  • Myong Kim
    • 2
  • Ja Hyeon Ku
    • 3
  • Cheol Kwak
    • 3
  • Hyeon Hoe Kim
    • 3
  • Chang Wook Jeong
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologyDongtan Sacred Heart HospitalHwaseongKorea
  2. 2.Department of UrologyAsan Medical CenterSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of UrologySeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations