Prostate CancerDevelopment and Internal Validation of a Novel Model to Identify the Candidates for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer
Introduction
Up to 15% of prostate cancer (PCa) patients harbor lymph node invasion (LNI) at radical prostatectomy (RP) [1]. These individuals are at a higher risk of recurrence after primary treatment [2]. Correct nodal staging is crucial to identify patients with poor prognosis who would benefit from additional therapies [3], [4]. The implementation of novel imaging modalities such as prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography /computed tomography scan prior to RP is limited by their poor performance characteristics [5]. Conversely, an anatomically defined extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) represents the most optimal method for nodal staging [6], [7]. Given the prolonged operative time as well as the increased risk of complications associated with an ePLND [8], [9], this procedure is indicated only in selected patients at a higher risk of nodal involvement [6], [7]. The European Association of Urology (EAU)–European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)–International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines recommend the use of models based on preoperative characteristics such as the Briganti and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomograms to estimate the risk of LNI and, in turn, to select men who should be considered for an ePLND [10], [11], [12], [13]. However, these tools need to be periodically updated [14]. Moreover, although the Briganti and MSKCC nomograms achieve very good performance characteristics, they can certainly be improved [15]. Indeed, none of them included the precise assessment of cancer involvement within the biopsy cores or accounted for intraprostatic heterogeneity in PCa grade. This might lead to a limited accuracy in estimating the risk of LNI [10], [11], [13]. Under this light, we sought to develop a novel nomogram predicting LNI in a contemporary cohort of patients treated with RP and ePLND, with detailed biopsy information available after a centralized biopsy specimen review.
Section snippets
Population source and surgical procedure
After Institutional Review Board approval, clinical and pathologic data were prospectively collected for 2872 patients treated with open or robot-assisted RP and ePLND for localized PCa between January 2011 and July 2016 at a single tertiary referral center. Patients with complete data who underwent centralized biopsy specimens review performed by two high-volume dedicated uropathologists (either R.M. or M.F.) were selected (n = 681). No patients received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. All cases
Baseline characteristics
Overall, 79 (12%) patients had LNI (Table 1). The median (IQR) number of lymph nodes removed was 16 (8–22). The sites for positive lymph nodes were the obturator fossa (n = 42; 53%); external (n = 34; 43%), internal (n = 20; 25%), and common (n = 9; 11%) iliac stations; and presacral area (n = 8; 9%). Preoperative PSA, biopsy grade group, percentage of positive cores, percentage of cores with highest-grade PCa, maximum percentage of single core involvement with highest- and lower-grade PCa, tumor length,
Discussion
Nodal staging is crucial to identify patients with localized PCa at a higher risk of adverse oncologic outcomes and plan their optimal management [1], [2], [3], [4]. Available imaging modalities are associated with suboptimal performance characteristics [5]. Therefore, an anatomically defined ePLND still represents the gold standard for the detection of nodal metastases [6], [7]. Given the potential morbidity associated with this procedure [8], [9], an ePLND should be considered only in men
Conclusions
An ePLND should be avoided in patients with detailed biopsy information and a risk of nodal involvement below 7%, according to our newly developed nomogram to predict LNI in order to spare approximately 70% ePLNDs at the cost of missing only 1.5% patients with node-positive PCa.
References (31)
- et al.
Extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: a 20-year audit in a single center
Ann Oncol
(2013) - et al.
Long-term outcomes of patients with lymph node metastasis treated with radical prostatectomy without adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy
Eur Urol
(2014) - et al.
Predicting survival of patients with node-positive prostate cancer following multimodal treatment
Eur Urol
(2014) - et al.
Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Eur Urol
(2016) - et al.
EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent
Eur Urol
(2017) - et al.
Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature
Eur Urol
(2014) - et al.
Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer
Eur Urol
(2006) - et al.
Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores
Eur Urol
(2012) - et al.
Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(1994) - et al.
Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection and the impact of standard template dissection on nomogram prediction of lymph node involvement
Eur Urol.
(2011)