Article

Temporal Trends and Predictors of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Open or Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy

Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.9). 09/2011; 117(17):3933-42. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25981
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is an important component of prostate cancer staging and treatment, especially for surgical patients who have high-risk tumor features. It is not clear how the shift from open radical prostatectomy (ORP) to minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has affected the use of PLND. The objectives of this study were to identify predictors of PLND and to assess the impact of surgical technique in a contemporary, population-based cohort.
In Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data linked with Medicare claims, the authors identified men who underwent ORP or MIRP for prostate cancer during 2003 to 2007. The impact of surgical approach on PLND was evaluated, and interactions were examined between surgical procedure, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and Gleason score with the analysis controlled for patient and tumor characteristics.
Of 6608 men who underwent ORP or MIRP, 70% (n = 4600) underwent PLND. The use of PLND declined over time both overall and within subgroups defined by procedure type. PLND was 5 times more likely in men who underwent ORP than in men who underwent MIRP when the analysis was controlled for patient and tumor characteristics. Elevated PSA and biopsy Gleason score, but not clinical stage, were associated with a greater odds of PLND in both the ORP group and the MIRP group. However, the magnitude of the association between these factors and PLND was significantly greater for patients in the ORP group.
PLND was less common among men who underwent MIRP, independent of tumor risk factors. A decline in PLND rates was not fully explained by an increase in MIRP. The authors concluded that these trends may signal a surgical approach-dependent disparity in prostate cancer staging and therapy.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Andrew Feifer, Dec 11, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
210 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Published outcomes of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) demonstrate significant variability. The purpose of the study was to compare PLND outcomes in patients at risk for lymph node involvement (LNI) who were undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) by different surgeons and surgical approaches. Institutional policy initiated on January 1, 2010, mandated that all patients undergoing RP receive a standardized PLND with inclusion of the hypogastric region when predicted risk of LNI was ≥ 2%. We analyzed the outcomes of consecutive patients meeting these criteria from January 1 to September 1, 2010 by surgeons and surgical approach. All patients underwent RP; surgical approach (open radical retropubic [ORP], laparoscopic [LRP], RALP) was selected by the consulting surgeon. Differences in lymph node yield (LNY) between surgeons and surgical approaches were compared using multivariable linear regression with adjustment for clinical stage, biopsy Gleason grade, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and age. Of 330 patients (126 ORP, 78 LRP, 126 RALP), 323 (98%) underwent PLND. There were no significant differences in characteristics between approaches, but the nomogram probability of LNI was slightly greater for ORP than RALP (P=0.04). LNY was high (18 nodes) by all approaches; more nodes were removed by ORP and LRP (median 20, 19, respectively) than RALP (16) after adjusting for stage, grade, PSA level, and age (P=0.015). Rates of LNI were high (14%) with no difference between approaches when adjusted for nomogram probability of LNI (P=0.15). Variation in median LNY among individual surgeons was considerable for all three approaches (11-28) (P=0.005) and was much greater than the variability by approach. PLND, including hypogastric nodal packet, can be performed by any surgical approach, with slightly different yields but similar pathologic outcomes. Individual surgeon commitment to PLND may be more important than approach.
    Journal of endourology / Endourological Society 11/2011; 26(6):748-53. DOI:10.1089/end.2011.0266 · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To investigate the prevailing practice of uro-oncologists regarding the indications for and extent of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 9-question survey was sent as a hyperlink by electronic mail to all members of the Society of Urologic Oncology. Participants were asked about their surgical volume, indications for PLND, which nodal packets are dissected as delineated on anatomical schema, and type of surgical approach. RESULTS: Of 340 members, 183 urologists (58%) completed the survey. Of these, 43% were ≥10 years out of fellowship and 62% performed >50 radical prostatectomies per year. Of the surveyed surgeons, 45% performed PLND on all patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. The remainder used various risk-stratification schemas. A total of 32 different indications for PLND were reported, the most common being "intermediate risk" according to the American Urological Association's risk classification. As to extent of PLND, 15% perform a PLND limited to the external iliac, while 30% include the external iliac, obturator fossa, and hypogastric lymph nodes. Among surgeons using both open and robotic approaches, 19% reported that the indication for and extent of lymphadenectomy performed differ based on the surgical approach used. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey provide insight into the practice patterns of uro-oncologists regarding PLND and highlight the lack of uniformity in determining when and how a PLND should be performed. Collaborative efforts are needed to develop guidelines on this issue and are a necessary step toward standardization of reporting the outcomes of surgical clinical trials.
    Urologic Oncology 06/2012; DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.04.021 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    European Urology 08/2012; 63(3). DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.029 · 12.48 Impact Factor