Association between pelvic lymph node dissection and survival among patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy

被引:1
|
作者
Kim Jr, Isaac E. [1 ]
Wang, Aaron H. [1 ]
Corpuz, George S. [2 ]
Sprenkle, Preston C. [3 ]
Leapman, Michael S. [3 ]
Brito, Joseph M. [3 ]
Renzulli, Joseph [3 ]
Kim, Isaac Yi [3 ]
机构
[1] Brown Univ, Warren Alpert Med Sch, Providence, RI USA
[2] Weill Cornell Med, New York, NY USA
[3] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Urol, New Haven, CT USA
关键词
Cancer-specific survival; Pelvic lymph node dissection; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; HIGH-RISK; OUTCOMES; MEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.prnil.2024.01.002
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Although the clinical benefits of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer remain uncertain, major guidelines recommend PLND based on risk profile. Thus, the objective of this study was to examine the association between PLND and survival among patients undergoing RP stratified by Gleason grade group (GG) with the aim of allowing patients and physicians to make more informed care decisions about the potential risks and benefits of PLND. Materials and methods: From the SEER-17 database, we examined overall (OS) and prostate cancerspecific (PCSS) survival of prostate cancer patients who underwent RP from 2010 to 2015 stratified by GG. We applied propensity score matching to balance pre-operative characteristics including race, age, PSA, household income, and housing status (urban/rural) between patients who did and did not undergo PLND for each GG. Statistical analyses included log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: We extracted a matched cohort from 80,287 patients with GG1-5 who underwent RP. The median PSA value was 6.0 ng/mL, and the median age was 62-years-old. 49,453 patients underwent PLND (61.60%), while 30,834 (38.40%) did not. There was no difference in OS and PCSS between patients who received PLND and those who did not for all Gleason GG (OS-GG1: P = 0.20, GG2: P = 0.34, GG3: P > 0.05, GG4: P = 0.55, GG5: P = 0.47; PCSS-GG1: P = 0.11, GG2: P = 0.96, GG3: P = 0.81, GG4: P = 0.22, GG5: P = 0.14).<br /> Conclusions: In this observational study, PLND at the time of RP was not associated with improved OS or PCSS among patients with cGS of 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 4 + 4, 4 + 5, and 5 + 4. These findings suggest that until definitive clinical trials are completed, prostate cancer patients who have elected RP should be appropriately counseled on the potential risks and lack of proven survival benefit of PLND. (c) 2024 The Asian Pacific Prostate Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:70 / 78
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Sensitivity and specificity of Briganti nomogram in Turkish patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection
    Sahin, Aytac
    Urkmez, Ahmet
    Yildirim, Caglar
    Kutluhan, Musab Ali
    Topaktas, Ramazan
    Verit, Ayhan
    AGING MALE, 2020, 23 (05) : 836 - 840
  • [42] More Extensive Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Improves Survival in Patients with Node-positive Prostate Cancer
    Abdollah, Firas
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Suardi, Nazareno
    Capitanio, Umberto
    Salonia, Andrea
    Nini, Alessandro
    Moschini, Marco
    Sun, Maxine
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Shariat, Sharhokh F.
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Briganti, Alberto
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 67 (02) : 212 - 219
  • [43] Assessment of Lymph Node Yield After Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Men with Prostate Cancer: A Comparison Between Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy in the Modern Era
    Truesdale, Matthew D.
    Lee, Daniel J.
    Cheetham, Philippa J.
    Hruby, Gregory W.
    Turk, Andrew T.
    Badani, Ketan K.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2010, 24 (07) : 1055 - 1060
  • [44] Complications of pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer
    Keegan K.A.
    Cookson M.S.
    Current Urology Reports, 2011, 12 (3) : 203 - 208
  • [45] Salvage pelvic lymph node dissection for lymph node recurrent prostate cancer
    Rosiello, Giuseppe
    Bandini, Marco
    Briganti, Alberto
    CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2019, 29 (06) : 629 - 635
  • [46] Clinical Outcome of Patients with Lymph Node-Positive Prostate Cancer following Radical Prostatectomy and Extended Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection
    Muck, Alexander
    Langesberg, Christian
    Mugler, Michael
    Rahnenfuehrer, Joerg
    Wullich, Bernd
    Schafhauser, Wolfgang
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2015, 94 (03) : 296 - 306
  • [47] Survival Benefit of Radical Prostatectomy in Lymph Node-Positive Patients with Prostate Cancer
    Engel, Jutta
    Bastian, Patrick J.
    Baur, Helmut
    Beer, Volker
    Chaussy, Christian
    Gschwend, Juergen E.
    Oberneder, Ralph
    Rothenberger, Karl H.
    Stief, Christian G.
    Hoelzel, Dieter
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2010, 57 (05) : 754 - 761
  • [48] Association between Radical Prostatectomy and Survival in Men with Clinically Node-positive Prostate Cancer
    Sarkar, Reith R.
    Bryant, Alex K.
    Parsons, J. Kellogg
    Ryan, Stephen T.
    Kader, A. Karim
    Kane, Christopher J.
    McKay, Rana R.
    Sandhu, Ajay
    Murphy, James D.
    Rose, Brent S.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2019, 2 (05): : 584 - 588
  • [49] The Role of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy in Patients With Gleason 6 Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer
    Mandel, Philipp
    Kriegmair, Maximilian C.
    Veleva, Valia
    Salomon, Georg
    Graefen, Markus
    Huland, Hartwig
    Tilki, Derya
    UROLOGY, 2016, 93 : 141 - 146
  • [50] Reconsideration on Clinical Benefit of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection during Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
    Fujimoto, Naohiro
    Shiota, Masaki
    Tomisaki, Ikko
    Minato, Akinori
    Yahara, Katsuya
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2019, 103 (02) : 125 - 136