Abstract
Introduction: Existing nomograms predicting lymph node involvement (LNI) in prostate cancer (PCa) are based on conventional lymphadenectomy. The aim of the study was to develop the first nomogram for predicting LNI in PCa patients undergoing sentinel guided pelvic lymph node dissection (sPLND). Materials and Methods: Analysis was performed on 1,296 patients with PCa who underwent radioisotope guided sPLND and retropubic radical prostatectomy (2005-2010). Median prostate specific antigen (PSA): 7.4 ng/ml (IQR 5.3-11.5 ng/ml). Clinical T-categories: T1: 54.8%, T2: 42.4%, T3: 2.8%. Biopsy Gleason sums: ≤6: 55.1%, 7: 39.5%, ≥8: 5.4%. Multivariate logistic regression models tested the association between all of the above predictors and LNI. Regression-based coefficients were used to develop a nomogram for predicting LNI. Accuracy was quantified using the area under the curve (AUC). Results: The median number of LNs removed was 10 (IQR 7-13). Overall, 17.8% of patients (n = 231) had LNI. The nomogram had a high predictive accuracy (AUC of 82%). All the variables were statistically significant multivariate predictors of LNI (p = 0.001). Univariate predictive accuracy for PSA, Gleason sum and clinical stage was 69, 75 and 69%, respectively. Conclusions: The sentinel nomogram can predict LNI at a sPLND very accurately and, for the first time, aid clinicians and patients in making important decisions on the indication of a sPLND. The high rate of LN+ patients underscores the sensitivity of sPLND.
References
1.
Withrow DR, DeGroot JM, Siemens DR, Groome PA: Therapeutic value of lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy: a population-based case-cohort study. BJU Int 2011;108:209-216.
2.
Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Fleischmann A, Studer UE: Good outcome for patients with few lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008;54:344-352.
3.
Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, et al: Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 2007;69:1095-1101.
4.
Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al: Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol 2006;49:1019-1026.
5.
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al: Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012;61:480-487.
6.
Godoy G, Chong KT, Cronin A, et al: Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection and the impact of standard template dissection on nomogram prediction of lymph node involvement. Eur Urol 2011;60:195-201.
7.
Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE: Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 2002;168:514-518.
8.
Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S: Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007;52:29-37.
9.
Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al: Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006;50:1006-1013.
10.
Musch M, Klevecka V, Roggenbuck U, Kroepfl D: Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1,380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol 2008;179:923-928.
11.
Winter A, Vogt C, Weckermann D, Wawroschek F: [Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in clinically localised prostate cancer: different techniques in comparison and dependency on the number of removed lymph nodes]. Aktuelle Urol 2011;42:179-183.
12.
Wawroschek F, Vogt H, Weckermann D, Wagner T, Hamm M, Harzmann R: Radioisotope guided pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:1715-1719.
13.
Holl G, Dorn R, Wengenmair H, Weckermann D, Sciuk J: Validation of sentinel lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: experience in more than 2,000 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:1377-1382.
14.
Joniau S, Van den Bergh L, Lerut E, et al: Mapping of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013;63:450-458.
15.
Jeschke S, Lusuardi L, Myatt A, Hruby S, Pirich C, Janetschek G: Visualisation of the lymph node pathway in real time by laparoscopic radioisotope- and fluorescence-guided sentinel lymph node dissection in prostate cancer staging. Urology 2012;80:1080-1086.
16.
Manny TB, Patel M, Hemal AK: Fluorescence-enhanced robotic radical prostatectomy using real-time lymphangiography and tissue marking with percutaneous injection of unconjugated indocyanine green: the initial clinical experience in 50 patients. Eur Urol 2014;65:1162-1168.
17.
R Development Core Team (2011): R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
18.
Sadeghi R, Tabasi KT, Bazaz SM, et al: Sentinel node mapping in the prostate cancer. Meta-analysis. Nuklearmedizin 2011;50:107-115.
19.
Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA, et al: A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 2003;170:1798-1803.
20.
Winter A, Kneib T, Henke RP, Wawroschek F: Sentinel lymph node dissection in more than 1200 prostate cancer cases: rate and prediction of lymph node involvement depending on preoperative tumor characteristics. Int J Urol 2014;21:58-63.
21.
Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, et al: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010;8:162-200.
22.
Mottet N, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al: EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer, 2014. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/1607%20Prostate%20Cancer_LRV3.pdf.
23.
Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF, et al: Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer. A new proposal based on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N+ patients treated with radical prostatectomy, extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 2009;55:261-270.
24.
Gakis G, Boorjian SA, Briganti A, et al: The role of radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection in lymph node-positive prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2014;66:191-199.
25.
Seiler R, Studer UE, Tschan K, et al: Removal of limited nodal disease in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: long-term results confirm a chance for cure. J Urol 2014;191:1280-1285.
26.
Engel J, Bastian PJ, Baur H, et al: Survival benefit of radical prostatectomy in lymph node-positive patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:754-761.
27.
Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI, Chun FK, et al: Percentage of positive biopsy cores can improve the ability to predict lymph node invasion in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 2007;51:1573-1581.
28.
Heidenreich A, Pfister D, Thüer D, Brehmer B: Percentage of positive biopsies predicts lymph node involvement in men with low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. BJU Int 2011;107:220-225.
29.
Hinev AI, Anakievski D, Kolev NH, Hadjiev VI: Validation of nomograms predicting lymph node involvement in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Urol Int 2014;92:300-305.
30.
Gacci M, Schiavina R, Lanciotti M, et al: External validation of the updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Urol Int 2013;90:277-282.
31.
Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Suardi N, Kattan MW: Comparison of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:4400-4407.
32.
Morgan-Parkes JH: Metastases: mechanisms, pathways, and cascades. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:1075-1082.
33.
Weckermann D, Dorn R, Holl G, Wagner T, Harzmann R: Limitations of radioguided surgery in high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2007;51:1549-1556.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
