Purpose: The study aimed to investigate clinical factors associating with occult lymph node micrometastases (pN1 disease) in a contemporary cohort of organ-confined prostate cancer (PCA) patients staged as cN0. Materials and Methods: The study evaluated 184 consecutive patients. Associations of clinical factors with pN1 disease were assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Lymph node invasion was detected in 33 cases (17.9%). Independent factors associating with pN1 status were prostate specific antigen (PSA; OR 1.054; p = 0.004), percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPC; OR 1.030; p = 0.013), and biopsy Gleason pattern (bGP) >4 + 3 (OR 3.666; p = 0.004). A clinical model predicting the risk of pN1 disease identified 4 prognostic groups of pN1 disease. Conclusions: In a contemporary cohort of PCA patients, lymph node invasion was detected in 17.9% of cases. An independent clinical disease showed that the risk of lymph node invasion was directly proportional to PPC and more stratification of the risk of pN1 disease was operated by PSA and BGP. The model allowed the stratification of the patient population in 4 groups and showed that the risk of lymph node invasion progressively increased as the risk group ranked from 1 to 4.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Lymph node, Tumour grade, Gleason score system, Prostate specific antigen
1.
Gil-Vernet JM: Prostate cancer: anatomical and surgical considerations. Br J Urol 1996;78:161-168.
2.
Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S: Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007;52:29-37.
3.
Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, Graefen M, Heidenreich A, Karnes JR, Montorsi F, Studer UE: Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009 ;55:1251-1265.
4.
Breyer BN, Greene KL, DallʼEra MA, Davies BJ, Kane CJ: Pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008;11:320-324.
5.
Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A, Haese A, Heidenreich A, Menon M, Sulser T, Tewari AK, Eastham JA: Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2014;65:7-16.
6.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974.
7.
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, Bianchi M, Sun M, Freschi M, Salonia A, Karakiewicz PI, Rigatti P, Montorsi F: 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.
8.
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee: The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228-1242.
9.
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI: Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753-760.
10.
Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, Erbersdobler A, Lin DW, Nelson JB, Rubin MA, van der Kwast T, Amin M, Epstein JI: Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care. Eur Urol 2013;63:892-901.
11.
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA: A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428-435.
12.
Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J; VIP Team: Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 2003;169:2289-2292.
13.
Walsh PC: Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy; in Campbell's Urology, ed 8. Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED (eds). Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 2002, vol 4, chapter 90, pp 3107-3129.
14.
Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Chang SS, Egevad L, Epstein JI, Grignon DJ, McKiernan JM, Montironi R, Renshaw AA, Reuter VE, Wheeler TM; Members of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists: Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:1568-1576.
15.
Suardi N, Larcher A, Haese A, Ficarra V, Govorov A, Buffi NM, Walz J, Rocco B, Borghesi M, Steuber T, Pini G, Briganti A, Mottrie AM, Guazzoni G, Montorsi F, Pushkar D, Van Der Poel H: Indication for and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis of five European Institutions. Eur Urol 2014;66:635-643.
16.
Yuh B, Artibani W, Heidenreich A, Kimm S, Menon M, Novara G, Tewari A, Touijer K, Wilson T, Zorn KC, Eggener SE: The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013;65:918-927.
17.
Caster JM, Falchook AD, Hendrix LH, Chen RC: Risk of pathologic upgrading or locally advanced disease in early prostate cancer patients based on biopsy Gleason score and PSA: a population-based study of modern patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;92:244-251.
18.
Porcaro AB, Siracusano S, De Luyk N, Corsi P, Sebben M, Tafuri A, Bizzotto L, Tamanini I, Inverardi D, Cerruto MA, Martignoni G, Brunelli M, Artibani W: Low-risk prostate cancer and tumor upgrading to higher patterns in the surgical specimen. Analysis of clinical factors predicting tumor upgrading to higher Gleason patterns in a contemporary series of patients who have been evaluated according to the modified Gleason score grading system. Urol Int 2016;97:32-41.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
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.