4.6 Article

Incidence of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤10 ng/mL and biopsy Gleason score of ≤6, and their influence on PSA progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy

Journal

BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 97, Issue 6, Pages 1173-1178

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06166.x

Keywords

prostatic neoplasm; lymphatic metastases; prostatectomy; disease progression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate how many men with low-risk prostate cancer had positive lymph nodes detected by radio-guided surgery and whether they had a higher biochemical relapse rate after radical prostatectomy, because in such patients most urologists dispense with operative lymph node staging, as nomograms indicate only a low percentage of lymph node metastases. Patients and Methods The study included 474 men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of <= 10 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score of <= 6 and positive biopsies in one (group 1, 315 men) or both lobes (group 2, 159 men); follow-up data were available in 357 men. Men with adjuvant radiation or hormone therapy before the occurrence of biochemical relapse were excluded. Results Positive lymph nodes were detected in 17 men in group 1, and in 18 in group 2. In more than half of the patients (19/35) these nodes were found outside the region of standard lymphadenectomy. Men with node-positive disease had a higher biochemical relapse rate (P < 0.001). When the tumour was organ-confined and well differentiated in node-positive disease (Gleason score <= 6) the biochemical relapse rate was lower than in men with higher tumour stage and grade. Conclusions When dissecting pelvic lymph nodes, extended or sentinel lymphadenectomy should be preferred. Removing the diseased nodes could improve the PSA progression-free survival, especially in well differentiated organ-confined disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available