Reevaluating the Therapeutic Role of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

IF 0.9 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
Ryosuke Yamase, Satoshi Yamamoto, Koki Watanabe, Atsushi Inoue, Kazuyoshi Nakamura, Maki Nagata
{"title":"Reevaluating the Therapeutic Role of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy","authors":"Ryosuke Yamase,&nbsp;Satoshi Yamamoto,&nbsp;Koki Watanabe,&nbsp;Atsushi Inoue,&nbsp;Kazuyoshi Nakamura,&nbsp;Maki Nagata","doi":"10.1111/ases.70061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is recommended for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer according to D'Amico risk classification, and there is evidence supporting its diagnostic value in staging. However, its therapeutic benefit remains unproven. We, therefore, aimed to evaluate the therapeutic significance of PLND in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We retrospectively analyzed 329 patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (per D'Amico risk classification) who underwent RARP at two centers. Patients were divided into two groups: those who did not undergo lymph node dissection (no-PLND group) and those who underwent an extended PLND (extended-PLND group). After excluding patients who received neoadjuvant hormone therapy, 313 cases remained for analysis. Propensity score matching was performed to balance baseline characteristics, yielding 85 matched pairs. We compared prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the matched groups. Perioperative outcomes (complications, console time, and blood loss) were also compared.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no significant differences in PSA-PFS (<i>p</i> = 0.163) or OS (<i>p</i> = 0.323) between the extended-PLND and no-PLND groups after matching. Similarly, when stratified by risk category, PSA-PFS did not differ significantly between the two groups for either intermediate-risk or high-risk patients. Perioperative blood loss was similar between groups, but the no-PLND group had a significantly lower overall complication rate (5.1% vs. 30.4%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and shorter median console time (160.2 vs. 230.5 min, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) than the extended-PLND group. Notably, no Grade 3–4 complications (Clavien–Dindo) occurred in the no-PLND group, compared to 11 cases in the extended-PLND group.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, performing an extended PLND during RARP did not improve biochemical recurrence-free or OS, suggesting minimal therapeutic benefit.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47019,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ases.70061","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ases.70061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is recommended for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer according to D'Amico risk classification, and there is evidence supporting its diagnostic value in staging. However, its therapeutic benefit remains unproven. We, therefore, aimed to evaluate the therapeutic significance of PLND in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 329 patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (per D'Amico risk classification) who underwent RARP at two centers. Patients were divided into two groups: those who did not undergo lymph node dissection (no-PLND group) and those who underwent an extended PLND (extended-PLND group). After excluding patients who received neoadjuvant hormone therapy, 313 cases remained for analysis. Propensity score matching was performed to balance baseline characteristics, yielding 85 matched pairs. We compared prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the matched groups. Perioperative outcomes (complications, console time, and blood loss) were also compared.

Results

Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no significant differences in PSA-PFS (p = 0.163) or OS (p = 0.323) between the extended-PLND and no-PLND groups after matching. Similarly, when stratified by risk category, PSA-PFS did not differ significantly between the two groups for either intermediate-risk or high-risk patients. Perioperative blood loss was similar between groups, but the no-PLND group had a significantly lower overall complication rate (5.1% vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001) and shorter median console time (160.2 vs. 230.5 min, p < 0.001) than the extended-PLND group. Notably, no Grade 3–4 complications (Clavien–Dindo) occurred in the no-PLND group, compared to 11 cases in the extended-PLND group.

Conclusion

In intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, performing an extended PLND during RARP did not improve biochemical recurrence-free or OS, suggesting minimal therapeutic benefit.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
129
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信