Does Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Improve the Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated by Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy?

Biochemical Relapse in Low-risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy and Bilateral Pelvic Lymphadenectomy

Introduction For low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), curative treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) can be performed, reporting a biochemical relapse-free survival rate (bRFS) at 5 and 7 years of 90.1% and 88.3%, respectively. Prostatic specific antigen (PSA), pathological stage (pT), and positive margins (R1) are significant predictors of biochemical relapse (BR). Even though pelvic lymphadenectomy is not recommended during RP, in the literature, it is performed in 34% of these patients, finding 0.37% of positive lymph nodes (N1). In this study, we aim to evaluate the 10-year bRFS in patients with low-risk PCa who underwent RP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND).

Methodology All low-risk patients who underwent RP plus bilateral ePLND at the National Cancer Institute of Colombia between 2006 and 2019 were reviewed. Biochemical relapse was defined as 2 consecutive increasing levels of PSA > 0.2 ng/mL. A descriptive analysis was performed using the STATA 15 software (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA), and the Kaplan-Meier curves and uni and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used for the survival outcome analysis. The related regression coefficients were used for the hazard ratio (HR), and, for all comparisons, a two-sided p-value ˂ 0.05 was used to define statistical significance.

Results Two hundred and two patients met the study criteria. The 10-year bRFS for the general population was 82.5%, statistically related to stage pT3 (p = 0.047), higher Gleason grade group (GG) (p ≤ 0.001), and R1 (p ≤ 0.001), but not with N1. A total of 3.9% of the patients had N1; of these, 75% had R1, 25% GG2, and 37% GG3. Among the N0 (non-lymph node metástasis in prostate cáncer) patients, 31% of the patients had R1, 41% GG2, and 13% GG3.

Conclusions Our bRFS was 82.5% in low-risk patients who underwent RP and ePLND. With higher pT, GG, and presence of R1, the probability of BR increased. Those with pN1 (pathologicaly confirmed positive lymph nodes) were not associated with bRFS, with a pN1 detection rate of 3.9%.

Details: In low-risk PCa, curative treatment with RP can be performed, reporting a bRFS rate at 5 and 7 years of 90.1% and 88.3%, respectively. Despite the fact that pelvic lymphadenectomy is not recommended during RP in clinical guidelines, in the literature, it is performed in 34% of these patients, finding 0.37% of N1. In this study, we report the 10-year bRFS in patients with low-risk PCa who underwent surgery.

Therapeutic Consequences of Omitting a Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection at Radical Prostatectomy when Grade and/or Stage Increase

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect on biochemical recurrence (BCR) of omitting PLND in subsequently upgraded/upstaged patients (pNx regret). Using nomograms, patients with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer can be selected to omit a pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of a radical prostatectomy (RP). However, some patients will experience upgraded pathology and/or stage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched a prospectively maintained single institution/multi-surgeon cohort of patients treated by RP and >5-year follow-up. From 2006-2012, 1026 (521 pNx and 505 pN0/1) eligible patients with biopsy Gleason Score ≤3+4 and cT1c-cT2 undergoing RARP were included in the study.

RESULTS

Gleason upgrading from ≤3+4 to >3+4 and/or pT3-4 occurred in 17% of pNx and 32% of pN0/N1 (p<0.001). BCR occurred in 5% of the pNx, and 7% of the PLND group. Five-year BCR free survival was higher in the pNx group (94.7% vs. 91%, P = .048). BCR occurred in 3% in the non-pNx regret and 18% in the pNx regret patients. However, with propensity score matching with pNx regret and pN0/N1 patients, 5-year BCR free survival rates were similar (81% vs 77%, P = .466).

CONCLUSIONS

Low to favorable intermediate-risk patients who PLND was omitted and experienced upgrading or upstaging (pNx regret), have a higher predicted BCR. However, when matched to a similar cohort with pN0/N1, the BCR did not differ. Omission of a PLND does not appear to alter the rates of BCR compared to PLND inclusion.

Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: Laparoscopy is not dead

CONTEXT

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in localized prostate cancer is feasible through an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach. Data comparing the three approaches is sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a review in order to compare the effectiveness of the different PLND approaches.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

A search was performed including the following words: ("pelvic lymph node dissection") OR ("pelvic lymphadenectomy") AND ("French"[Language] OR "English"[Language]) AND ("1990"[Date-Publication]: "3000"[Date-Publication]) AND prostatectomy[Title]). Twenty-nine articles were finally included in the qualitative synthesis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer is a minimally invasive procedure with a relatively short operative time, minimal blood loss, lower level of pain, shorter hospital stay, and fewer perioperative complications when compared to an open approach. This technique is more cost-effective than a robot-assisted approach.

CONCLUSION

Concerning the treatment of localized prostate cancer, laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection should be learned and applied by urologists.

Facility-Level Variation in Pelvic Lymphadenectomy During Radical Prostatectomy and Effect on Overall Survival in Men with High-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

This study was designed to examine facility-level variation in the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy and to determine whether more extensive lymphadenectomy is associated with a survival benefit among men with localized high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using data from the National Cancer Data Base, we identified 13,652 men with a high predicted probability of 10-year survival (≤ 65 years of age and Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0) who underwent radical prostatectomy at 1023 facilities for biopsy-confirmed localized high-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2011. Multilevel, multinomial logistic regression was fitted to predict facility-level probability of receiving different extents of lymphadenectomy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Cox regression model with Bonferroni correction was fitted to compare risk of overall mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 11,284 (82.7%), 1601 (11.7%), and 767 (5.6%) men who underwent radical prostatectomy underwent concomitant none/limited lymphadenectomy (0-9 lymph nodes), standard lymphadenectomy (10-16 lymph nodes), and extended lymphadenectomy (≥ 17 lymph nodes), respectively. Extended lymphadenectomy was not associated with a survival benefit relative to standard lymphadenectomy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-1.23; p = 0.4) nor no/limited lymphadenectomy (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.87-2.20; p = 0.29) at a median follow-up of 83.3 months. Risk-adjusted facility-level predicted probabilities of extended, standard, or no/limited lymphadenectomy ranged from 0.01 to 52.6%, 3.3-53.3%, and 17.8-96.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant facility-level variation in the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy during radical prostatectomy despite no apparent survival benefit associated with more extensive lymphadenectomy. Further prospective data are needed to reevaluate the role of lymphadenectomy in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer.

The Benefits and Harms of Different Extents of Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread.

Is extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer the only recommended option? A systematic over-view of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is performed alongside radical prostatectomy as the most accurate method of staging prostate cancer. Yet the potential therapeutic benefits of lymphadenectomy are yet to be confirmed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A PubMed database search was performed to identify all papers comparing techniques for PLND or none. The primary outcome measure was long term oncological outcomes. Studies looking at men with clinically localized prostate cancer at the time of radical prostatectomy who received no adjuvant treatment were included. Previous reviews and single case reports were excluded. The subsequent available papers were then systematically reviewed.

RESULTS

Limited PLND provides no benefit in low risk prostate cancer and is unlikely to provide a therapeutic benefit in higher risk groups either when compared with no PLND. Extended PLND may provide some therapeutic benefit, particularly in patients with occult metastases; however, the evidence base for this is not particularly strong and may be down to statistical phenomena.

CONCLUSION

When performed in prostate cancer patients, PLND should be extended, as it is a more accurate staging tool and may provide therapeutic benefit to some patients. However, to properly assess this, randomised controlled studies need to be performed in this area.

The survival benefit of lymph node dissection at the time of removal of kidney, prostate and urothelial carcinomas: what is the evidence?

INTRODUCTION

Lymph node dissection (LND) has been advocated by oncologic surgeons to completely eradicate cancer. However, evidence for that strategy is solely based on poor quality data. Some randomized studies done outside the field of urology failed to show any benefit to LND. Our objective was to evaluate whether LND at the time of removal of prostate, kidney and urothelial carcinomas results in a survival benefit.

METHODS

For that purpose, we performed a systematic literature review.

RESULTS

For kidney cancer, LND might be able to cure some patients with N+ disease. In N0 patients, although a randomized trial has been completed, the value of LND remains uncertain. LND at the time of radical prostatectomy can be useful in some patients with lymph node invasion. However, studies on the impact of LND in pN0 patients are retrospective and conflictive. Extended LND has been recommended when performing a radical cystectomy based on improved outcomes observed in retrospective studies. However, these studies are limited by selection biases and results of ongoing randomized trials will specify the template and the advantages of LND when removing a bladder cancer. Recent data of large series of radical nephro-ureterectomies for upper tract urothelial carcinomas are conflicting. Some found a benefit of LND in N0 patients while others did not.

CONCLUSION

The studies that support LND at the time of surgery for prostate, kidney and urothelial carcinomas have low level of evidence. This should encourage urologists to design and perform well-designed randomized trials to assess the potential survival impact of a commonly done procedure.