Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is it necessary to do staging pelvic lymph node dissection for T1c prostate cancer?

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The necessity of pelvic lymph node dissection has been questioned in recent years as a result of improved pre-treatment staging based on clinical and pathologic factors. Accurate evaluation of nodal status allows rational selection of therapy and improved outcomes. Nevertheless, lymph node dissection may play a role even in patients with low stage disease (clinical T1c) despite an overall low risk for metastases. Herein we discuss recent advances in the evaluation of lymph nodes in stage T1c prostate cancer with respect to accurate prediction, radiologic imaging, molecular characterization, and operative considerations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA: Cancer statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin 2000, 50:7–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hankey BF, Feuer EJ, Clegg LX, et al.: Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer, part I: evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999,J Natl Cancer Inst199991:1017–1024. Observations from the SEER data demonstrating the trends in prostate cancer incidence and the likely benefit of prostate cancer screening on reducing mortality.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beahrs OH, Henson DE, Hutter RVP, for the American Joint Committee on Cancer: Manual for Staging of Cancer edn 4. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Catalona WJ, Ritchie JP, Ahmann FR, et al.: Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994, 151:1283.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Crawford ED, Batuello JT, Snow P, et al.: The use of an artificial intelligence technology to predict lymph node spread in men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2000, 88:2105–2109.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Amling CL, Blute ML, Lerner SE, et al.: Influence of prostate-specific antigen testing on the spectrum of patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy at a large referral practice. Mayo Clin Proc 1998, 73:401–406.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong ENP, et al.: Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. a multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997, 277:1445–1451. Update of the widely used 1993 Partin tables which provides important information about likely pathologic stage. Validated by the Blute study [8].

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Partin AW, et al.: Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2000, 164:1591–1595.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rietbergen JB, Hoedemaeker RF, Kruger AE, et al.: The changing pattern of prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis: characteristics of screen detected prostate cancer in a popu-lation based screening study. J Urol 1999, 161:1192–1198.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Barroso U Jr, Oskanian P, Tefilli MV, et al.: Population-based study of pelvic lymph node positivity in clinically localized prostate cancer: a study comparing African Americans and whites. Urology 1999, 53:187–191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Potter SR, Mangold LA, Shue MJ, et al.: Molecular and immunohistochemical staging of men with seminal vesicle invasion and negative pelvic lymph nodes at radical pro-statectomy. Cancer 2000, 89:2577–2586.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Carter HB, Epstein JI, Partin AW: Influence of age and prostate-specific antigen on the chance of curable prostate cancer among men with nonpalpable disease. Urology 1999, 53:126–130.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bluestein DL, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, et al.: Eliminating the need for bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in select patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 1994, 151:1315–1320.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Narayan P, Fournier G, Gajendran V, et al.: Utility of pre-operative serum prostate-specific antigen concentration and biopsy Gleason score in predicting risk of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Urology 1993, 44:519–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Spevack L, Killion LT, West JC Jr, et al.: Predicting the patient at low risk for lymph node metastasis with localized prostate cancer: an analysis of four statistical models. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996, 34:543–547.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Southwick PC, Catalona WJ, Partin AW, et al.: Prediction of post-radical prostatectomy pathological outcome for stage T1c prostate cancer with percent free prostate specific antigen: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. J Urol 1999, 162:1346–1351.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Meng MV, Carroll PR: When is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary before radical prostatectomy? A decision analysis. J Urol 2000, 164:1235–1240. Addresses the threshold at which pelvic lymphadenectomy should be performed using formal decision analysis.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Scheidler J, Reiser MF: MRI of the female and male pelvis: current and future applications of contrast enhancement. Eur J Radiol 2000, 34:220–228.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai Y-H, et al.: Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2001, 57:108–111.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kotzerke J, Prang J, Neumaier B, et al.: Experience with carbon-11 choline positron emission tomography in prostate carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med 2000, 27:1415–1419.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Manyak MJ, Hinkle GH, Olsen JO, et al.: Immunoscintigraphy with indium-111-capromab pendetide: evaluation before definitive therapy in patients with prostate cancer. Urology 1999, 54:1058–1063.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Polascik TJ, Manyak MJ, Haseman MK, et al.: Comparison of clinical staging algorithms and 111-indium-capromab pendetide imunoscintigraphy in the prediction of lymph node involvement in high risk prostate carcinoma patients. Cancer 1999, 85:1586–1592.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Darson MF, Pacelli A, Roche P, et al.: Human glandular kallikrein 2 expression in prostate adenocarcinoma and lymph node metastases. Urology 1999, 53:939–944.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Adler HL, McCurdy MA, Kattan MW, et al.: Elevated levels of circulating interleukin-6 and transforming growth factor-beta1 in patients with metastatic prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1999, 161:182–187.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rubin MA, Gerstein A, Reid K, et al.: 10q23.3 loss of hetero-zygosity is higher in lymph node-positive (pT2-3,N+) versus lymph node-negative (pT2-3,N0) prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 2000,Hum Pathol200031:504–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fujikawa K, Matsui Y, Kobayashi T, et al.: Predicting patho-logical stage of localized prostate cancer using volume weighted mean nuclear volume. J Urol 2000, 153:1587–1590.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Okegawa T, Nutahara K, Higashihara E: Detection of micrometastatic prostate cancer cells in the lymph nodes by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction is predictive of biochemical recurrence in pathological stage T2 prostate cancer. J Urol 2000, 163:1183–1188.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wawroschek F, Vogt H, Weckermann D, et al.: The sentinel lymph node concept in prostate cancer—first results of gamma probe-guided sentinal lymph node identification. Eur Urol 1999, 36:595–600.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tiguert R, Gheiler EL, Tefilli MV, et al.: Lymph node size does not correlate with the presence of prostate cancer metastasis. Urology 1999, 53:367–371.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Young MP, Kirby RS, O'Donoghue EP, et al.: Accuracy and cost of intraoperative lymph node frozen section at radical prostatectomy. J Clin Pathol 1999, 52:925–927.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Okuno H, et al.: Per-operative frozen section examination of pelvic nodes is unnecessary for the majority of clinically localized prostate cancers in the prostate-specific antigen era. Int J Urol 2000, 7:281–286.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fergany A, Kupelian PA, Levin HS, et al.: No difference in biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy in low-risk patients. Urology 2000, 56:92–95. Retrospective demonstration that omission of lymph node dissection does not compromise cure rates in low-risk patients.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Salomon L, Hoznek A, Lefrere-Belda MA, et al.: Nondissection of pelvic lymph nodes does not influence the results of radical prostatectomy in selected patients. Eur Urol 2000, 37:297–300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Olumi AF, Richie JP, Schultz DJ, D'Amico AV: Calculated volume of prostate cancer identifies patient with clinical stage T1c disease at high risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study. Urology 2000, 56:273–277.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ghavamain R, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al.: Radical retropubic prostatectomy plus orchiectomy versus orchiectomy alone for pTxN+ prostate cancer: a matched comparison. J Urol 1999, 161:1223–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, et al.: Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1999, 341:1781–1788. This study suggests a survival benefit of immediate hormonal therapy after radical prostatectomy in men with lymph node metastases.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, U-575, University of California, San Francisco, 94143-0738, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Maxwell V. Meng MD & Peter R. Carroll MD

Authors
  1. Maxwell V. Meng MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter R. Carroll MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meng, M.V., Carroll, P.R. Is it necessary to do staging pelvic lymph node dissection for T1c prostate cancer?. Curr Urol Rep 2, 237–241 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-001-0085-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-001-0085-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation