Changing Patterns of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy for Prostate Cancer: Results From CaPSURE™

Journal of Urology

Volumn 176, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1382-1386

  Kawakami, Jun ^a   Meng, Maxwell V ^a   Sadetsky, Natalia ^a   Latini, David M ^a   Duchane, Janeen ^a,b   Carroll, Peter R ^a  

^a Urologic Outcomes Research Group   (United States)

^b TAP PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS INC   (United States)

Author keywords

lymph node excision; mass screening; prostate; prostatic neoplasms

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; DISEASE SEVERITY; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE DISSECTION; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PELVIS LYMPHADENECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; LYMPH NODE EXCISION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PELVIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGISTRIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 33748280677     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Derweesh I.H., Kupelian P.A., Zippe C., Levin H.S., Brainard J., Magi-Galluzzi C., et al. Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol 22 (2004) 300
2. Lubeck D.P., Litwin M.S., Henning J.M., Stier D.M., Mazonson P., Fisk R., et al. The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. CaPSURE Research Panel. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Urology 48 (1996) 773
3. D'Amico A.V., Schultz D., Loffredo M., Dugal R., Hurwitz M., Kaplan I., et al. Biochemical outcome following external beam radiation therapy with or without androgen suppression therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 284 (2000) 1280
4. Cagiannos I., Karakiewicz P., Eastham J.A., Ohori M., Rabbani F., Gerigk C., et al. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 170 (2003) 1798
5. Crawford E.D., Batuello J.T., Snow P., Gamito E.J., McLeod D.G., Partin A.W., et al. The use of artificial intelligence technology to predict lymph node spread in men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 88 (2000) 2105
6. Bhatta-Dhar N., Reuther A.M., Zippe C., and Klein E.A. No difference in six-year biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy in low-risk patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology 63 (2004) 528
7. Salomon L., Hoznek A., Lefrere-Belda M.A., Bellot J., Chopin D.K., and Abbou C.C. Nondissection of pelvic lymph nodes does not influence the results of perineal radical prostatectomy in selected patients. Eur Urol 37 (2000) 297
8. Bader P., Burkhard F.C., Markwalder R., and Studer U.E. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer?. J Urol 168 (2002) 514
9. Burkhard F.C., Bader P., Schneider E., Markwalder R., and Studer U.E. Reliability of preoperative values to determine the need for lymphadenectomy in patients with prostate cancer and meticulous lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 42 (2002) 84
10. Garrett K.L., McNeal J.E., and Cohen R.J. Intraoperative lymph node staging of prostate cancer. the case against. Aust N Z J Surg 73 (2003) 263
11. Heidenreich A., Varga Z., and von K.R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 167 (2002) 1681
12. Clark T., Parekh D.J., Cookson M.S., Chang S.S., Smith Jr. E.R., Wells N., et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 169 (2003) 145
13. Campbell S.C., Klein E.A., Levin H.S., and Piedmonte M.R. Open pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. a reassessment. Urology 46 (1995) 352
14. Hovels A.M., Heesakkers R.A., Adang E.M., Jager G.J., and Barentsz J.O. Cost-analysis of staging methods for lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. MRI with a lymph node-specific contrast agent compared to pelvic lymph node dissection or CT. Eur Radiol 14 (2004) 1707
15. Sogani P.C., Watson R.C., and Whitmore Jr. W.F. Lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy for urologic cancer. Urology 17 (1981) 39
16. Allaf M.E., Palapattu G.S., Trock B.J., Carter H.B., and Walsh P.C. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection. impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 172 (2004) 1840
17. Bader P., Burkhard F.C., Markwalder R., and Studer U.E. Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure?. J Urol 169 (2003) 849
18. Shariat S.F., Roudier M.P., Wilcox G.E., Kattan M.W., Scardino P.T., Vessella R.L., et al. Comparison of immunohistochemistry with reverse transcription-PCR for the detection of micrometastatic prostate cancer in lymph nodes. Cancer Res 63 (2003) 4662
19. Wawroschek F., Wagner T., Hamm M., Weckermann D., Vogt H., Markl B., et al. The influence of serial sections, immunohistochemistry, and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection on the lymph node status in clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 43 (2003) 132
20. DiMarco D.S., Zincke H., Sebo T.J., Slezak J., Bergstralh E.J., and Blute M.L. The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 173 (2005) 1121