Open figure viewer
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the harms and oncological benefits of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) in prostate cancer patients at risk for regional lymph node invasion. Methods: Patients with cN0M0 prostate cancer who underwent RP between January 2013 and February 2023 were included. Patients were categorized into two groups: 334 patients who underwent RP with PLND (group A) and 161 without PLND (group B). Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were assessed, and multivariate analysis identified independent prognostic factors. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to account for baseline differences. Results: Group A had more advanced disease, longer operation times, and higher complication rates, with 58.3% of complications related to PLND. After a median follow-up of 56 months, there were no significant differences in 4-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) (68.9% vs. 75.4%), metastasis-free survival, or overall survival between the groups. Positive surgical margins and tumor grade were independent risk factors for biochemical recurrence, while PLND was not. Cox regression in the IPTW-adjusted cohort confirmed no significant impact of PLND on BRFS (HR: 0.70, p = 0.09). Conclusion: PLND during RP increases postoperative complications without improving short-term oncologic outcomes, serving mainly as a staging procedure to inform management.
Journal Section:
Research Article
References
1.
Mottet
N
, van den Bergh
RCN
, Briers
E
, Van den Broeck
T
, Cumberbatch
MG
, De Santis
M
, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent
. Eur Urol
. 2021
;79
(2
):243
–62
. 2.
Hövels
AM
, Heesakkers
RAM
, Adang
EM
, Jager
GJ
, Strum
S
, Hoogeveen
YL
, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis
. Clin Radiol
. 2008
;63
(4
):387
–95
. 3.
Wu
H
, Xu
T
, Wang
X
, Yu
YB
, Fan
ZY
, Li
DX
, et al. Diagnostic performance of 68Gallium labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for staging the prostate cancer with intermediate or high risk prior to radical prostatectomy
. World J Mens Health
. 2020
;38
(2
):208
–19
. 4.
Hofman
MS
, Lawrentschuk
N
, Francis
RJ
, Tang
C
, Vela
I
, Thomas
P
, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study
. Lancet
. 2020
;395
(10231
):1208
–16
. 5.
Hope
TA
, Eiber
M
, Armstrong
WR
, Juarez
R
, Murthy
V
, Lawhn-Heath
C
, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for pelvic nodal metastasis detection prior to radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: a multicenter prospective phase 3 imaging trial
. JAMA Oncol
. 2021
;7
(11
):1635
–42
. 6.
Stabile
A
, Pellegrino
A
, Mazzone
E
, Cannoletta
D
, de Angelis
M
, Barletta
F
, et al. Can negative prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography avoid the need for pelvic lymph node dissection in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis with backup histology as reference standard
. Eur Urol Oncol
. 2022
;5
(1
):1
–17
. 7.
Oderda
M
, Diamand
R
, Albisinni
S
, Calleris
G
, Carbone
A
, Falcone
M
, et al. Indications for and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: accuracy of available nomograms for the prediction of lymph node invasion
. BJU Int
. 2021
;127
(3
):318
–25
. 8.
Lestingi
JFP
, Guglielmetti
GB
, Trinh
QD
, Coelho
RF
, Pontes
J
, Bastos
DA
, et al. Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early oncological outcomes from a randomized phase 3 trial
. Eur Urol
. 2021
;79
(5
):595
–604
. 9.
Mottet
N
, Cornford
P
, van den Bergh
RCN
, Briers
E
, Eberli
D
, De Meerleer
G
, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer
. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan
. Arnhem, The Netherlands
: EAU Guidelines Office
; 2023
. Available from: http://uroweb.org/guidelines/compilations-of-all-guidelines/10.
Fossati
N
, Willemse
PPM
, Van den Broeck
T
, van den Bergh
RCN
, Yuan
CY
, Briers
E
, et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review
. Eur Urol
. 2017
;72
(1
):84
–109
. 11.
Keegan
KA
, Cookson
MS
. Complications of pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer
. Curr Urol Rep
. 2011
;12
(3
):203
–8
. 12.
Cacciamani
GE
, Maas
M
, Nassiri
N
, Ortega
D
, Gill
K
, Dell’Oglio
P
, et al. Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection and its extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
. Eur Urol Oncol
. 2021
;4
(2
):134
–49
. 13.
Sooriakumaran
P
, Narain
TA
, Davda
R
. Pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy: extended? Of course not
. Eur Urol Open Sci
. 2022
;44
:18
–9
. 14.
Clinckaert
A
, Callens
K
, Cooreman
A
, Bijnens
A
, Moris
L
, Van Calster
C
, et al. The prevalence of lower limb and genital lymphedema after prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review
. Cancers
. 2022
;14
(22
):5667
. 15.
Abdollah
F
, Gandaglia
G
, Suardi
N
, Capitanio
U
, Salonia
A
, Nini
A
, et al. More extensive pelvic lymph node dissection improves survival in patients with node-positive prostate cancer
. Eur Urol
. 2015
;67
(2
):212
–9
. 16.
Zhang
X
, Zhang
G
, Wang
J
, Bi
J
. Different lymph node dissection ranges during radical prostatectomy for patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
. World J Surg Oncol
. 2023
;21
(1
):80
–8
. 17.
Preisser
F
, Van Den Bergh
RCN
, Gandaglia
G
, Ost
P
, Surcel
CI
, Sooriakumaran
P
, et al. Effect of extended pelvic lymph node dissection on oncologic outcomes in patients with D’Amico intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study
. J Urol
. 2020
;203
(2
):338
–43
. 18.
Touijer
KA
, Sjoberg
DD
, Benfante
N
, Laudone
VP
, Ehdaie
B
, Eastham
JA
, et al. Limited versus extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial
. Eur Urol Oncol
. 2021
;4
(4
):532
–9
. 19.
Altok
M
, Chapin
BF
, Matin
SF
, Achim
MF
, Gregg
JR
, Davis
JW
. Therapeutic consequences of omitting a pelvic lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy when grade and/or stage increase
. Urology
. 2021
;155
:144
–51
. 20.
Li
YR
, Roach
M
. The Roach equation: value of old clinical tools in the era of new molecular imaging
. J Nucl Med
. 2020
;61
(9
):1292
–3
. 21.
Lumen
N
, Lambert
E
, Poelaert
F
, Wirtz
M
, Verbeke
S
, Van Praet
C
. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
. J Vis Exp
. 2022
(183
). 22.
Lumen
N
, Van Praet
C
, De Troyer
B
, Fonteyne
V
, Oosterlinck
W
, Decaestecker
K
, et al. Safe introduction of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after a training program in a high-volume robotic centre
. Urol Int
. 2013
;91
(2
):145
–52
. 23.
Fonteyne
V
, Van Praet
C
, Ost
P
, Van Bruwaene
S
, Liefhooghe
N
, Berghen
C
, et al. Evaluating the impact of prostate only versus pelvic radiotherapy for pathological node-positive prostate cancer: first results from the multicenter phase 3 PROPER trial
. Eur Urol Focus
. 2023
;9
(2
):317
–24
. 24.
Clavien
PA
, Barkun
J
, De Oliveira
ML
, Vauthey
JN
, Dindo
D
, Schulick
RD
, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience
. Ann Surg
. 2009
;250
(2
):187
–96
. 25.
Mitropoulos
D
, Artibani
W
, Graefen
M
, Remzi
M
, Rouprêt
M
, Truss
M
, et al. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations
. Eur Urol
. 2012
;61
(2
):341
–9
. 26.
Benedetto
U
, Head
SJ
, Angelini
GD
, Blackstone
EH
. Statistical primer: propensity score matching and its alternatives
. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg
. 2018
;53
(6
):1112
–7
. 27.
Touijer
KA
, Mazzola
CR
, Sjoberg
DD
, Scardino
PT
, Eastham
JA
. Long-term outcomes of patients with lymph node metastasis treated with radical prostatectomy without adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy
. Eur Urol
. 2014
;65
(1
):20
–5
. 28.
Gillessen
S
, Bossi
A
, Davis
ID
, de Bono
J
, Fizazi
K
, James
ND
, et al. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: report of the advanced prostate cancer consensus conference 2022
. Eur Urol
. 2023
;83
(3
):267
–93
. 29.
Iczkowski
KA
, Van Leenders
GJLH
, Van Der Kwast
TH
. The 2019 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma
. Am J Surg Pathol
. 2021
;45
(7
):1007
–7
. 30.
Gandaglia
G
, Barletta
F
, Robesti
D
, Scuderi
S
, Rajwa
P
, Gomez Rivas
J
, et al. Identification of the optimal candidates for nodal staging with extended pelvic lymph node dissection among prostate cancer patients who underwent preoperative prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography
. Eur Urol Oncol
. 2023
;6
(6
):543
–52
. 31.
Vis
AN
, Meijer
D
, Roberts
MJ
, Siriwardana
AR
, Morton
A
, Yaxley
JW
, et al. Development and external validation of a novel nomogram to predict the probability of pelvic lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer patients using magnetic resonance imaging and molecular imaging with prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission
. Eur Urol Oncol
. 2023
;6
(6
):553
–63
. 32.
Muehlematter
UJ
, Schweiger
L
, Ferraro
DA
, Hermanns
T
, Maurer
T
, Heck
MM
, et al. Development and external validation of a multivariable [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET-based prediction model for lymph node involvement in men with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer
. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
. 2023
;50
(10
):3137
–46
. © 2026 S. Karger AG, Basel
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.
2026
You do not currently have access to this content.
