SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical Significance of Radical Prostatectomy in Clinical Lymph Node Metastasis in Prostate Cancer

  • Urologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to investigate the role of radical prostatectomy (RP) among clinical nodal metastasis prostate cancer and whether histological confirmation of lymph node metastasis through surgery can help with treatment.

Patients and Methods

After excluding patients with distant metastatic prostate cancer or neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy, 42 patients with clinical nodal metastasis who underwent RP at our institution were included in the study. We classified them as having or not having pathological lymph node metastasis. Clinicopathologic data were analyzed in this retrospective chart review. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to calculate the estimated castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)-free survival, biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival, and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

Results

There is no significant difference in age, presence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, BCR time, CRPC time, overall survival, salvage RT rate, and initial prostate-specific antigen level between the two groups. However, there is a significant difference in the pathology N1 group in terms of pathological T stage, pathologic Gleason score, BCR rate, CRPC rate, and CSS. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to identify predictors of CRPC-free survival. Patients with pathological lymph node metastasis had a shorter CRPC-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) 4.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25–19.00, p = 0.02].

Conclusion

Radical prostatectomy can confirm lymph node metastasis. Although pathologic diagnosis has no effect on time to BCR and CPRC, because it affects BCR rate, CRPC rate, and CSS, an accurate pathological diagnosis obtained through surgery is beneficial in the treatment of clinical lymph node metastasis prostate cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society. About Prostate Cancer 2021 [Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics.html.

  2. World Cancer Research Fund International. Prostate cancer statistics 2020 [Available from: https://www.wcrf.org/cancer-trends/prostate-cancer-statistics/.

  3. Seisen T, Vetterlein MW, Karabon P, **dal T, Sood A, Nocera L, et al. Efficacy of local treatment in prostate cancer patients with clinically pelvic lymph node-positive disease at initial diagnosis. Eur Urol. 2018;73(3):452–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Datta K, Muders M, Zhang H, Tindall DJ. Mechanism of lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer. Future Oncol. 2010;6(5):823–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng L, Zincke H, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Scherer B, Bostwick DG. Risk of prostate carcinoma death in patients with lymph node metastasis. Cancer. 2001;91(1):66–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deng FM, Mendrinos SE, Das K, Melamed J. Periprostatic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer and its clinical significance. Histopathology. 2012;60(6):1004–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kazzazi A, Djavan B. Current status of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: the New York PLND nomogram. Can J Urol. 2011;18(2):5585–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chenam A, Parihar JS, Ruel N, Pal S, Avila Y, Yamzon J, et al. Lymph node-positive prostate cancer after robotic prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(3):425–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer Version 1.2023 2022 [Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.

  10. Mandel P, Steuber T, Graefen M. Radical prostatectomy in oligometastatic prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27(6):572–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jenjitranant P, Touijer KA. Role of surgery in oligometastatic prostate cancer. Prostate Int. 2019;7(4):125–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chipollini JJ, Pow-Sang JM. Lymph node positive prostate cancer: the evolving role of adjuvant therapy. Transl Cancer Res. 2018;7:S94–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Motterle G, Ahmed ME, Andrews JR, Karnes RJ. The role of radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection in clinically node positive patients. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1395.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chierigo F, Borghesi M, Würnschimmel C, Flammia RS, Horlemann B, Sorce G, et al. Survival after radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy in clinical node-positive prostate cancer. Prostate. 2022;82(6):740–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sundi D, Svatek RS, Nielsen ME, Schoenberg MP, Bivalacqua TJ. Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy: is bigger better? Rev Urol. 2014;16(4):159–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Zarzour JG, Galgano S, McConathy J, Thomas JV, Rais-Bahrami S. Lymph node imaging in initial staging of prostate cancer: an overview and update. World J Radiol. 2017;9(10):389–99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Amling CL, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, Slezak JM, Zincke H. Defining prostate specific antigen progression after radical prostatectomy: what is the most appropriate cut point? J Urol. 2001;165(4):1146–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I, Morris M, Sternberg CN, Carducci MA, et al. Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the prostate cancer clinical trials working group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(7):1148–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ventimiglia E, Seisen T, Abdollah F, Briganti A, Fonteyne V, James N, et al. A systematic review of the role of definitive local treatment in patients with clinically lymph node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(3):294–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin CC, Gray PJ, Jemal A, Efstathiou JA. Androgen deprivation with or without radiation therapy for clinically node-positive prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(7):119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Petersen LJ, Zacho HD. PSMA PET for primary lymph node staging of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: an expedited systematic review. Cancer Imaging. 2020;20(1):10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Pollack A, Horwitz EM, Movsas B. Treatment of prostate cancer with regional lymph node (N1) metastasis. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003;13(2):121–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Öbek C, Doğanca T, Demirci E, Ocak M, Kural AR, Yıldırım A, et al. The accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in primary lymph node staging in high-risk prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(11):1806–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jegadeesh N, Liu Y, Zhang C, Zhong J, Cassidy RJ, Gillespie T, et al. The role of adjuvant radiotherapy in pathologically lymph node-positive prostate cancer. Cancer. 2017;123(3):512–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Dongwon Kim MD, PhD, Bum** Lim MD, Jungyo Suh MD, Dalsan You MD, PhD, In Gab Jeong MD, PhD, Jun Hyuk Hong MD, PhD & Hanjong Ahn MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Dongwon Kim MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bum** Lim MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jungyo Suh MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dalsan You MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. In Gab Jeong MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jun Hyuk Hong MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hanjong Ahn MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study conception and design: BL, DK; data acquisition: DK; data analysis and interpretation: DK, DY; manuscript drafting: DK, IGJ; critical manuscript revisions: JS, JHH, HA; supervision: BL.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bum** Lim MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent is waived by the institutional review board (IRB).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, D., Lim, B., Suh, J. et al. Clinical Significance of Radical Prostatectomy in Clinical Lymph Node Metastasis in Prostate Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 30, 7903–7909 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-14137-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-14137-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation