Radical Prostatectomy Without Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Is Widely Practiced in High-Risk Patients Despite Poorer Survival

被引:5
|
作者
Kodiyan, Joyson [1 ]
Guirguis, Adel [1 ]
Ashamalla, Hani [1 ]
机构
[1] NewYork Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, 506 6th St, Brooklyn, NY 11215 USA
关键词
Cancer; Pelvis; Prostate; Surgery; Urology; DISEASE PROGRESSION; CANCER; LYMPHADENECTOMY;
D O I
10.1016/j.clgc.2020.03.008
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The study investigated practice patterns and outcomes of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients receiving radical prostatectomy using the National Cancer Data Base. Fifty-one percent of those with favorable risk disease did not receive PLND; 39.2% of those with unfavorable risk disease did not receive a PLND, and those who did not receive nodal dissection had significantly worse survival. Patients with unfavorable risk prostate cancer undergoing surgery should strongly be considered for PLND. Purpose: Radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the standard of care for unfavorable risk prostate cancer. We investigated dissection practice patterns and their impact on overall survival using a large national database. Patients and Methods: Men with prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. Disease was classified as either favorable or unfavorable on the basis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Minimum follow-up was 4 years. All patients received riskappropriate surgery: prostatectomy with or without PLND. Prostatectomy alone and prostatectomy with PLND was propensity score matched within each risk cohort. Survival analysis included Kaplan-Meier statistics, Cox proportional hazards model, and multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 66,469 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Median (range) age was 63 (27-90) years. Median (range) follow-up was 59.53 (48-143.54) months. Within the cohort of patients with favorable risk disease, 51% did not undergo nodal dissection. Matched analysis demonstrated no difference in survival (P = .926). Within the cohort of patients with unfavorable risk disease, 39.2% did not receive nodal dissection. Matched analysis demonstrated that nodal dissection had superior survival (log-rank P = .002; hazard ratio - 0.624; 95% confidence interval, 0.466-0.835; P= .002). Greater odds of receiving nodal dissection included an open or robot-assisted approach compared to a laparoscopic approach, academic/research programs, and higher risk groups. Conclusion: Although PLND is associated with a significant survival benefit in men with unfavorable risk prostate cancer, nearly 40% of patients with unfavorable risk disease did not receive PLND. Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:395 / +
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The effect of lymph node dissection on cancer-specific survival in salvage radical prostatectomy patients
    Wenzel, Mike
    Wurnschimmel, Christoph
    Nocera, Luigi
    Colla Ruvolo, Claudia
    Tian, Zhe
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    Saad, Fred
    Briganti, Alberto
    Graefen, Markus
    Kluth, Luis A.
    Mandel, Philipp
    Chun, Felix K. H.
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    PROSTATE, 2021, 81 (06): : 339 - 346
  • [42] Rate and Extent of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in the US Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Radical Prostatectomy
    Nocera, Luigi
    Sood, Akshay
    Dalela, Deepansh
    Gild, Philipp
    Rogers, Craig G.
    Peabody, James O.
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Menon, Mani
    Briganti, Alberto
    Abdollah, Firas
    CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2018, 16 (02) : E451 - E467
  • [43] The significance of pelvic lymph node dissection in radical prostatectomy and its influence on the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer
    Shen, Xianqi
    Li, Jialun
    Zhou, Zenghui
    Zhang, Wenhui
    Ji, Jin
    Qu, Min
    Wang, Yan
    Gao, Xu
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2024, 13 (09)
  • [44] Development of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection is independent of surgical approach: a single-center analysis
    Thomas, Christian
    Ziewers, Stefanie
    Thomas, Anita
    Dotzauer, Robert
    Bartsch, Georg
    Haferkamp, Axel
    Tsaur, Igor
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2019, 51 (04) : 633 - 640
  • [45] Contemporary National Trends and Variations of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Xia, Leilei
    Chen, Bofeng
    Jones, Amanda
    Talwar, Ruchika
    Chelluri, Raju R.
    Lee, Daniel J.
    Guzzo, Thomas J.
    CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2021, 19 (04) : 309 - 315
  • [46] Molecular Lymph Node Status for Prognostic Stratification of Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy with Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection
    Heck, Matthias M.
    Retz, Margitta
    Bandur, Miriam
    Souchay, Marc
    Vitzthum, Elisabeth
    Weirich, Gregor
    Schuster, Tibor
    Autenrieth, Michael
    Kuebler, Hubert
    Maurer, Tobias
    Thalgott, Mark
    Herkommer, Kathleen
    Gschwend, Juergen E.
    Nawroth, Roman
    CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 24 (10) : 2342 - 2349
  • [47] 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
  • [48] Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection
    Pickard, Robert
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 18 (04) : 311 - 311
  • [49] When is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary before radical prostatectomy? A decision analysis
    Meng, MV
    Carroll, PR
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 164 (04): : 1235 - 1240
  • [50] Standardized and Simplified Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: The Monoblock Technique
    Mattei, Agostino
    Di Pierro, Giovanni Battista
    Grande, Pietro
    Beutler, Jonas
    Danuser, Hansjoerg
    UROLOGY, 2013, 81 (02) : 446 - 450