A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on the efficacy of extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma

A comparative analysis of perioperative complications and biochemical recurrence between standard and extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is commonly performed during radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer staging. This study aimed to comprehensively analyze existing evidence compare perioperative complications associated with standard (sPLND) versus extended PLND templates (ePLND) in RP patients.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of prospective studies on PLND complications was conducted. Systematic searches were performed on Web of Science, Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until May 2023. Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using random-effects models in the meta-analysis. The statistical analysis of the data was carried out using Review Manager software.

RESULTS

Nine studies, including three randomized clinical trial and six prospective studies, with a total of 4962 patients were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that patients undergoing ePLND had a higher risk of partial perioperative complications, such as lymphedema ( I2 =28%; RR 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.27; P <0.001) and urinary retention ( I2 =0%; RR 0.30; 95% CI: 0.09-0.94; P =0.04) compared to those undergoing sPLND. However, there were no significant difference was observed in pelvic hematoma ( I2 =0%; RR 1.65; 95% CI: 0.44-6.17; P =0.46), thromboembolic ( I2 =57%; RR 0.91; 95% CI: 0.35-2.38; P =0.85), ureteral injury ( I2 =33%; RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.05-1.52; P =0.14), intraoperative bowel injury ( I2 =0%; RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.14-5.27; P =0.88), and lymphocele ( I2 =0%; RR 1.58; 95% CI: 0.54-4.60; P =0.40) between sPLND and ePLND. Additionally, no significant difference was observed in overall perioperative complications ( I2 =85%; RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.40-1.16; P =0.16). Furthermore, ePLND did not significantly reduce biochemical recurrence ( I2 =68%; RR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.28-1.24; P =0.16) of prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

This analysis found no significant differences in overall perioperative complications or biochemical recurrence between sPLND and ePLND, but ePLND may offer enhanced diagnostic advantages by increasing the detection rate of lymph node metastasis.

Robot-assisted extended lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

The extent of lymph node dissection (LND) and its potential survival benefit are still a matter of debate. Aim of our review was to summarize the latest literature data regarding the surgical templates, the potential oncological benefits, the functional outcomes and the complications of extended lymph node dissection (eLND) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically reviewed all relevant studies using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, American Urological Association (AUA), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A narrative synthesis of all relevant publications on surgical templates, complications, oncological and functional outcomes of robot assisted eLND was undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS

A great deal of evidence supports that an extended template of LND is not only technically feasible but also safe in the context of RARP. It is really promising that in the era of minimally invasive surgery, parameters like the lymph node yield and the detection rates of positive lymph nodes during LND have become highly comparable with open series. The extended approach has already proved its benefits in terms of proper patient staging but more studies are needed with regard to functional outcomes and oncological benefits of this procedure.

Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Localized or Node-Positive Prostate Cancer: Removing the Primary

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the literature to determine what role, if any, radical prostatectomy should play in the treatment of high-risk and/or node-positive prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

The AUA, NCCN, and EAU all include radical prostatectomy as a treatment option for high-risk prostate cancer based on evidence that has shown improvements in biochemical-free and disease-specific survival. Lymph node-positive patients may also derive benefit from radical prostatectomy with lymph node dissection, however, only retrospective studies with high risk of selection bias have been published to date. High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease representing a wide range of disease characteristics. Radical surgery, historically avoided in such patients, may now be considered a valid treatment option for select cases. The adverse effects of surgery using modern techniques lead to similar quality of life outcomes as radiation therapy, and treatment of the primary tumor is likely beneficial when compared to ADT alone.

Clinical management and research priorities for high-risk prostate cancer in the UK: Meeting report of a multidisciplinary panel in conjunction with the NCRI Prostate Cancer Clinical Studies Localised Subgroup

The management of high-risk prostate cancer has become increasingly sophisticated, with refinements in radical therapy and the inclusion of adjuvant local and systemic therapies. Despite this, high-risk prostate cancer continues to have significant treatment failure rates, with progression to metastasis, castrate resistance and ultimately disease-specific death. In an effort to discuss the challenges in this field, the UK National Clinical Research Institute’s Prostate Cancer Clinical Studies localised subgroup convened a multidisciplinary national meeting in the autumn of 2014. The remit of the meeting was to debate and reach a consensus on the key clinical and research challenges in high-risk prostate cancer and to identify themes that the UK would be best placed to pursue to help improve outcomes. This report presents the outcome of those discussions and the key recommendations for future research in this highly heterogeneous disease entity.

Therapeutic role of systematic lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: A systematic review

The purpose of the current review was to examine whether systematic lymphadenectomy is safe and effective for treating early-stage endometrial cancer. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched during April 2014 to identify studies comparing the use of systematic lymphadenectomy and no systematic lymphadenectomy in parallel for the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer. A total of 13 eligible studies involving 51,155 patients were included in this review. The median overall survival (OS) rate at 5 years following lymphadenectomy was 90% (range, 73.1-98.3%) for patients undergoing the systematic procedure and 88.2% (range, 68-98.4%) for patients not undergoing the systematic procedure. For the two types of lymphadenectomy, OS has tended to improve over the last 20 years. The combined rate of disease-free and progression-free survival was higher in patients who underwent systematic lymphadenectomy, and the recurrence rate was lower. In particular, systematic lymphadenectomy was associated with markedly higher OS than the non-systematic procedure for patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer when ≥11 lymph nodes were removed. Systematic lymphadenectomy demonstrates clinical benefit in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer and should thus be a standard treatment option. In conclusion, systematic lymphadenectomy leads to higher OS than no systematic lymphadenectomy in intermediate- and high-risk patients with early-stage endometrial cancer, particularly when the procedure removes ≥11 lymph nodes.

The role of extended pelvic lymphadenectomy with radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

The role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa) is controversial. Despite extensive research in both patterns of lymphatic drainage and the clinical effect of lymph node involvement, the exact role of PLND in PCa is yet to be defined.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE database was performed, and all relevant articles were reviewed in depth.

RESULTS

We included 84 relevant articles in our review and subdivided the information into the following categories: preoperative patient evaluation, procedure/extent of dissection, complications, and robotic surgery era. Most authors agree that the greatest benefit is seen in patients with high-risk PCa undergoing RP. Multiple imaging modalities have been evaluated for assistance in patient selection, but the use of preoperative nomograms appears to be the most helpful selection tool. The role of limited PLND vs. extended PLND (e-PLND) is yet to be defined, though many authors agree that e-PLND is preferred in the setting of high-risk PCa. Although PLND is associated with a higher incidence of complications, especially lymphocele formation, it is unclear whether e-PLND leads to more complications than limited PLND. The introduction of minimally invasive surgery may have had a negative effect on implementation of PLND in the appropriate patients undergoing RP.

CONCLUSION

Despite a lack of prospective, randomized trials evaluating PLND in RP, there does appear to be a consistent benefit in patients with high-risk disease.