Assessment of lymph node yield after pelvic lymph node dissection in men with prostate cancer: A comparison between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy in the modern era

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 24, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1055-1060

  Truesdale, Matthew D ^a   Lee, Daniel J ^a   Cheetham, Philippa J ^a   Hruby, Gregory W ^a   Turk, Andrew T ^a   Badani, Ketan K ^a  

^a NewYork Presbyterian Hospital   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BLEEDING; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LYMPH NODE DISSECTION; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MODERN TIMES; OPERATION DURATION; PELVIS LYMPH NODE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; ROBOTICS;

HUMANS; LYMPH NODE EXCISION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PELVIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTICS;

EID: 77954926569     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0128     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007;177:2106-2131. (Pubitemid 46726449)
2. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2007;69: 147-151.
3. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: High incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 2002;167:1681-1686.
4. Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, et al. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;172:1840-1844.
5. Masterson TA, Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ, et al. The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006;175:1320-1325.
6. Touijer K, Rabbani F, Otero JR, et al. Standard versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in patients with a predicted probability of nodal metastasis greater than 1%. J Urol 2007;178:120-124.
7. Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 2006;68:121-125.
8. DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, et al. The extent of lym-phadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2005;173:1121-1125.
9. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, et al. Prospective evaluation of concomitant lymphadenectomy in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Endourol 2006;20:514-518.
10. Zorn KC, Katz MH, Bernstein A, et al. Pelvic lymphade-nectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Assessing nodal yield, perioperative outcomes, and complications. Urology 2009;74:296-302.
11. Polcari AJ, Hugen CM, Sivarajan G, et al. Comparison of open and robot-assisted pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. J Endourol 2009;23:1313-1317.
12. Yates J, Haleblian G, Stein B, et al. The impact of robotic surgery on pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: The Brown University early robotic experience. Can J Urol 2009;16: 4842-4846.
13. Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MS, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003;169:145-148.
14. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006;50:1006-1013.
15. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974. (Pubitemid 28445094)
16. Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: Comparison of the extended and modified techniques. J Urol 1997;158: 1891-1894.
17. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Validation of a no-mogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol 2006;49: 1019-1027. (Pubitemid 43674000)
18. Golimbu M, Morales P, Al-Askari S, Brown J. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostatic cancer. J Urol 1979; 121:617-620.
19. Bochner BH, Herr HW, Reuter VE. Impact of separate versus en bloc pelvic lymph node dissection on the number of lymph nodes retrieved in cystectomy specimens. J Urol 2001; 166:2295-2296.
20. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009;55:1251-1265.
21. Makarov DV, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Pathological outcomes and biochemical progression in men with T1c prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy with prostate specific antigen 2.6 to 4.0 vs 4.1 to 6.0ng/ml. J Urol 2006;176:554-558.
22. Berglund RK, Sadetsky N, DuChane J, et al. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy does not affect 5-year failure rates for low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: Results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2007;177:526-530.
23. Weight CJ, Reuther AM, Gunn PW, et al. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection does not improve biochemical relapse-free survival at 10 years after radical prostatectomy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2008;71:141-145.
24. Kane CJ, Im R, Amling CL, et al. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: Results from the SEARCH database. Urology 2010. Epub ahead of print.
25. Magheli A, Rais-Bahrami S, Humphreys EB, et al. Impact of patient age on biochemical recurrence rates following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;178:1933-1938.