Difference in Frequency and Distribution of Nodal Metastases Between Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: Results of a Superextended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection
Marco Roscigno, Maria Nicolai, Giovanni La Croce, Federico Pellucchi, Manuela Scarcello, Antonino Saccà, Diego Angiolilli, Daniela Chinaglia, Luigi F. Da Pozzo
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the frequency and distribution of pelvic nodes metastases, in intermediate-high risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients (pts), who underwent open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and superextended pelvic lymph node dissection (sePLND). Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 630 consecutive pts with clinically localized, intermediate-high risk PCa, treated with ORP and sePLND from 2009 to 2016 at a single institution. The sePLND always removed all nodal/fibro-fatty tissue of the internal iliac, external iliac, obturator, common iliac, and presacral regions. Results: Positive lymph nodes (LN+) were found in 133 pts (21.1%). The median number of removed nodes and LN+ was 25 and 1, respectively. LN+ were found in 64 (48.1%), 58 (43.6%), 53 (39.8%), 16 (12%), and 20 (15%) pts and were present as a single site in 27 (20.3%), 22 (16.5%), 20 (15%), 0, and 6 (4.5%) cases in the internal iliac, external iliac, obturator, common iliac, and presacral chain, respectively. An ePLND would have correctly staged 127 (95%) pts but removed all LN+ in only 97 (73%) pts. Presacral nodes harbored LN+ in 20 patients. Among them, 18 were high-risk patients. Moreover, all but 1 pts with common iliac LN+ were in high risk group. Conclusions: These results suggest that removal of presacral and common iliac nodes could be omitted in intermediate risk pts. However, a PLND limited to external iliac, obturator, and internal iliac region may be adequate for nodal staging purpose, but not enough accurate if we aim to remove all possible site of LN+ in high risk pts.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
5%
Unknown
8
36%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,424,488
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#454
of 3,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,656
of 336,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,045 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
