Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is More Always Better? An Assessment of the Impact of Lymph Node Yield on Outcome for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer with Low/Intermediate Risk Pathology (pT2-3a/pN0) Managed with Prostatectomy Alone

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pathology & Oncology Research

Abstract

The clinical impact of lymph node dissection extent remains undetermined in the contemporary setting, as reflected in care pattern variations. Despite some series demonstrating a direct relationship between number of lymph nodes identified and detection of nodal involvement, the correlation between lymph node yield and disease control or survival outcomes remains unclear. Patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, pre-RP PSA <30, and pT2-3a/N0 disease at RP were retrospectively identified from two databases for inclusion. Those who received pre- or post-RP radiotherapy or hormone therapy were excluded. Kaplan-Meier method was employed for survival probability estimation. Cox regression models were used to assess bRFS differences between subsets. From 2002 to 2010, 667 eligible patients were identified. The median age was 61 yrs. (range, 43–76), with median PSA 5.6 ng/dL (0.9–28.0). At RP, most patients had pT2c (64%) disease with Gleason Score (GS) ≤6 (43%) or 7 (48%); 218 (33%) patients had positive margins (M+). At median clinical and PSA follow-up of 96 and 87 months, respectively, 146 patients (22%) experienced PSA failure with an estimated bRFS of 81%/76% at 5/8 years. For patients who underwent LND, univariable analysis identified PSA (at diagnosis), higher GS (≥7, at biopsy or RP), intermediate/high risk stratification, M+ as adversely associated with bRFS (all p < 0.01). A higher number of LNs excised was not associated with improved bRFS for the entire cohort (HR = 0.97, p = 0.27), nor for any clinical risk stratum, biopsy GS, or RP GS subgroup. This study did not demonstrate an association between LN yield and bRFS in patients with clinically localized pT2-3a/pN0 prostate cancer managed with RP alone, either in the entire population or with substratification by clinical risk stratum or GS.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay JSI, Ervik M, Dikshit R, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No 11 [Internet] Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr, accessed on 01/11/2017

  2. Lu-Yao GL, Greenberg ER (1994) Changes in prostate cancer incidence and treatment in USA. Lancet 343:251–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abdollah F, Suardi N, Gallina A et al (2013) Extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: a 20-year audit in a single center. Ann Oncol 24:1459–1466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A et al (2007) Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 69:147–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S (2007) Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52:29–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhatta-Dhar N, Reuther AM, Zippe C, Klein EA (2004) No difference in six-year biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy in low-risk patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology 63:528–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, Carter HB, Walsh PC (2004) Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 172:1840–1844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kluth LA, Xylinas E, Rieken M et al (2014) Does increasing the nodal yield improve outcomes in contemporary patients without nodal metastasis undergoing radical prostatectomy? Urol Oncol 32:47.e1–47.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Epstein JI, Srigley J, Grignon D, Humphrey P, Association of Directors of A, Surgical P (2008) Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma: Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 129:24–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:168–172

  11. Masterson TA, Bianco FJ, Vickers AJ et al (2006) The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 175:1320–1324

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schreiber D, Rineer J, Sura S et al (2011) Radical prostatectomy for cT3-4 disease: an evaluation of the pathological outcomes and patterns of care for adjuvant radiation in a national cohort. BJU Int 108:360–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gandaglia G, Trinh QD, Hu JC et al (2014) 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 40:1080–1086

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Berglund RK, Sadetsky N, DuChane J, Carroll PR, Klein EA (2007) Limited pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy does not affect 5-year failure rates for low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 177:526–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Murphy AM, Berkman DS, Desai M, McKiernan JM, Badani KK (2009) The number of negative pelvic lymph nodes removed does not affect the risk of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 105:176–179

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Schiavina R, Manferrari F, Garofalo M et al (2010) The extent of pelvic lymph node dissection correlates with the biochemical recurrence rate in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 108:1262–1268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R et al (2012) Lymph node count threshold for optimal pelvic lymph node staging in prostate cancer. Int J Urol 19:645–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brawley OW (2012) Trends in prostate cancer in the United States. J Nat Cancer Inst Monogr 2012:152–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH et al (2009) Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55:1251–1265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ et al (2005) The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXN0 prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 173:1121–1125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Joniau S, Van den Bergh L, Lerut E et al (2013) Mapping of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 63:450–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pagliarulo V, Hawes D, Brands FH et al (2006) Detection of occult lymph node metastases in locally advanced node-negative prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:2735–2742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I et al (2016) Diagnostic efficacy of (68)Gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 195:1436–1443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Dhar NB et al (2008) The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol 53:118–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grivas N, Wit E, Pos F et al (2017) Sentinel lymph node dissection to select clinically node-negative prostate cancer pateitns for pelvic radiation therapy: effect on biochemical and systemic progression. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 97:347–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Carver School of Medicine, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Steven N. Seyedin, Jessica R. Parkhurst, Mark C. Smith, John M. Buatti & John M. Watkins

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Darrion L. Mitchell

  3. Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Sarah L. Mott

  4. Bismarck Cancer Center, Bismarck, ND, USA

    J. Kyle Russo

  5. Department of Urology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Chad R. Tracy

  6. Department of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Anthony N. Snow

Authors
  1. Steven N. Seyedin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darrion L. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah L. Mott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Kyle Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chad R. Tracy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anthony N. Snow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jessica R. Parkhurst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mark C. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. John M. Buatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. John M. Watkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Watkins.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors declares that he or she has any potential or actual conflicts of interest with respect to the present investigation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seyedin, S.N., Mitchell, D.L., Mott, S.L. et al. Is More Always Better? An Assessment of the Impact of Lymph Node Yield on Outcome for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer with Low/Intermediate Risk Pathology (pT2-3a/pN0) Managed with Prostatectomy Alone. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 25, 209–215 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-017-0349-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-017-0349-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation