A new minimally invasive open pelvic lymphadenectomy surgical technique for the staging of prostate cancer

Minimally invasive extraperitoneal lymphadenectomy: clinical validation of an original technique

PURPOSE

To validate an original technique described for pelvic node dissection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A series of 192 patients were included in this study. The surgical technique we reported in 1987 is based on the use of a special retractor called the pelvioscope. The incision is the classical MacBurney incision on the right and its equivalent on the left. After the division of the muscles, the peritoneum is mobilized medially, and the pelvioscope is introduced. The node resection is then performed with classical surgical instruments.

RESULTS

In total; 151 bilateral, 20 unilateral right, and 21 unilateral left node dissections have been performed. In one case, dissection was not possible on both sides, and in two cases, the dissection was not complete on one side (patients previously operated on). The average intraoperative time was 69 minutes for a unilateral procedure and 103 minutes for a bilateral procedure. The mean number of pelvic lymph nodes removed was 5.6 on each side. The overall rate of complications was 7.3%.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of this minimally invasive surgery is clear, and the morbidity is low.

Indications for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer

Clearly, pelvic lymphadenectomy can provide important staging information in the management of prostate cancer, but this benefit is counterbalanced by a modest increase in morbidity and the significant cost of the procedure. It is difficult to provide universal recommendations concerning the indications for pelvic lymphadenectomy. Part of the problem lies in the fact that urologists perform pelvic lymphadenectomy for several different reasons. Some surgeons perform pelvic lymphadenectomy to better counsel patients after radical prostatectomy about their risk for disease progression and for planning adjuvant radiotherapy or hormonal therapy. For these surgeons, preoperative clinical staging parameters do not exclude patients from pelvic lymphadenectomy, and frozen section analysis intraoperatively provides no useful information. Alternatively, the staging information from pelvic lymphadenectomy can be used to justify cancellation of the subsequent prostatectomy should regional spread of prostate cancer be identified, sparing the patient the morbidity of an unnecessary radical prostatectomy. With this approach, despite the false-negative rate of up to 30%, the expense of frozen section analysis seems justified. For this second group of surgeons, the problem becomes balancing the modest morbidity and cost of pelvic lymphadenectomy against the probability that nodal spread of prostate cancer will be missed if the procedure is omitted. The authors consider a greater than 4% risk for missing regional disease to be unacceptable in this setting. Following this assumption, Table 3 outlines parameters for clinical stage, Gleason score, and preoperative PSA within which pelvic lymphadenectomy is indicated. These recommendations are based on [table: see text] predictions from the Partin nomogram, which has been validated using a series of over 4000 patients. For the large number of patients with clinical T1c disease and a preoperative PSA less than 10 ng/mL, bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy is indicated only if prostate biopsy identifies tumor of Gleason grade 4 or higher. For lower-grade tumors in this patient population, the risk for nodal metastasis was less than 5% in the Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic series of over 5800 patients with prostate cancer. For a large pool of patients, the several thousand dollar cost of pelvic lymphadenectomy and the risk for injury to the obturator nerves and vessels, the formation of lymphoceles, and chronic genital edema can be eliminated with low risk. A nomogram-based approach provides only a starting point for a decision analysis framework to determine whether the surgeon should perform lymphadenectomy at the time of radical prostatectomy because current nomograms predict only lymph node positivity. In a decision analysis framework, some patient and physician value is derived from a negative lymphadenectomy. Moreover, the morbidity associated with pelvic lymphadenectomy and the potential inconvenience associated with treating such morbidity also would be factored into the decision. Consequently, a decision analysis framework that takes into account prognostic value, costs, morbidity, and health state uses ultimately will provide the most informative method for determining when pelvic lymphadenectomy is indicated in patients with prostate cancer.

Indications, technique, and results of laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy

Despite considerable clinical research, there is still controversy about the optimal management of the pelvic lymph nodes in men with prostate cancer. This article reviews the creation and application of selection criteria for laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy and describes the various techniques.

Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: comparison of the extended and modified techniques

PURPOSE

We compared the results of extended (obturator, hypogastric, common and external iliac nodes) to modified (obturator and hypogastric nodes only) laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 189 patients with stage T1 to T3 prostate cancer underwent modified (150) or extended (39) laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for pelvic nodal assessment before definitive treatment.

RESULTS

Twice as many lymph nodes were removed via extended than modified laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection (mean 17:8 versus 9.3). The overall positivity rate was 23 of 189 lymph nodes (12.2%), including 14 of 150 (7.3%) for modified and 9 of 39 (23.1%) for extended dissection (p = 0.02). Two patients (22%) who underwent extended dissection had positive lymph nodes in the external iliac area. Patients who presented with the high risk features of prostate specific antigen (PSA) greater than 20 ng./ml., Gleason score 7 or greater, or stage T2b disease or greater had a 26.5% (p = 0.0002), 22% (p = 0.0006) or 16.4% (p = 0.003) likelihood of positive lymph nodes, respectively. For extended versus modified laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection node positivity in high risk patients was 27% versus 18.8% (p = 0.4), 30 versus 26.4% (p = 0.8) and 25.4 versus 14.6% (p = 0.17) for Gleason score 7 or greater, PSA greater than 20 ng./ml. and disease stage T2b to T3a, respectively. Patients who underwent the extended procedure had a higher complication rate (35.9 versus 2%, p < 0.0001). No laparotomy was required.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite yielding a 2-fold higher node count and higher node positivity rate, extended laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection offers no advantage over modified laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for diagnosing positive lymph nodes when results are analyzed by prognostic factors. The extended procedure is associated with a much higher complication rate. In patients with the high risk features of PSA greater than 20 ng./ml., Gleason score 7 or greater and stage T2b to T3a disease modified laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection can be performed safely and effectively to help identify those who may benefit most from curative therapy.