Lymph Node Dissection in the Management of Prostatic Carcinoma

  • R. J. Macchia
Part of the NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 53)


Lymph node dissection (LND) may be performed either for staging or for therapy. This discussion is limited to the former. LND has added considerable data to our clinical knowledge of prostatic cancer. At present it is the most accurate method of assessing nodal status. Utilizing LND the incidence of lymph node metastases has been related to the following parameters amongst others: size of the prostate, histologic grade (1), extent of intracapsular disease, extent of contiguous extra-capsular spread, especially to the seminal vesicles, and over-all clinical stage. LND has demonstrated that a percentage of patients felt to have disease limited to the prostate by clinical staging, in fact, have cancer metastatic to the lymph nodes. This information has had a significant impact on our concept of the percentage of patients in each stage at presentation. Patients with alleged localized clinical stage A1 disease have a 2–5% chance of having positive lymph nodes. The figure for A2 disease is 3–54%, for B1 disease is 10–40%, for B2 disease 39–45%, for C disease 50–80%. A recent review of the world literature (1) clearly documents the strong influence that histologic grade exerts on the likelihood of positive nodes.


Nodal Status Positive Lymph Node Seminal Vesicle Gleason Score Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R.E. Donohue, H.E. Fauver, J.A. Whitesel, R.R. Augspurger and R.R. Pfister, Prostatic Carcinoma: Influence of Tumor Grade on Results of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy, J. Urol. 17:435 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.F. Gleason, Histologic Grading and Clinical Staging Prostatic Cancer in “Urologic Pathology: The Prostate”, M. Tannenbaum, ed., Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia (1977).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S.A. Kramer, Esperience with Gleason Histopathological Grading in Prostatic Cancer, J. Urol. 124:223 (1980).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Z. Wajsman, J. Gaeta, J.E. Pontes, L. Englander, S. Beckley and G.P. Murphy, Surgical Pathological Correlation of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Prostatic Cancer, Program of the Annual Meeting, American Urological Assn., p. 257, (1981).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W.J. Catalona, Value of Frozen Section Examination of Pelvic Lymph Nodes at Pelvic Lymphadenectomy for Prostatic Cancer, Program of the Annual Meeting, American Urological Assn., p.137, (1981).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Golimbu, P. Morales, S. Al-Askari and J. Brown, Extended Pelvic Lymphadenectomy for Prostatic Cancer, J. Urol. 121:617 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.B. Brendler, L.K. Cleeve, E.E. Anderson and D.F. Paulson, Staging Pelvic Lymphadenectomy for Carcinoma of the Prostate: Risk Versus Benefit, J. Urol. 124:849 (1980).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    L.P. Pertschuk, H.E. Rosenthal, R.J. Macchia, K.B. Eisenberg, J.G. Feldman, S.H. Wax, D.S. Kim, W.F. Whitmore Jr., J.I. Abrahams, E. Gaetjens, G.J. Wise, H.W. Herr, J.P. Karr, G.P. Murphy and A.A. Sandberg, Correlation of Histochemical and Biochemical Analyses of Androgen Binding in Prostatic Cancer: Relation to Therapeutic Response, Cancer (in press).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H.W. Herr, Complications of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy and Retro-pubic Prostate 1–125 Implantation, Urology, 14:226 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. Macchia
    • 1
  1. 1.Downstate Medical SchoolNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations