A multicenter comparative study of limited and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for high-risk prostate cancer patients
周芳坚,李科,李腾成,高新,杨雪帆,曹云,狄金明,黄健,李永红,马华丽,林天歆,刘小彭,刘皓,危文素,李锴文
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20210805-00413
2021-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To compare the pathological results and complications of limited and extended pelvic lymph node dissection among high-risk prostate cancer patients, and to explore the risk factors that affect the rate of lymph node metastasis in high-risk prostate cancer patients.Methods:The data of 800 high-risk prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection from January 2016 to December 2020 in three affiliated hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were analyzed retrospectively. According to the scope of pelvic lymph node dissection, they were divided into limited pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) group and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (EPLND) group. There were 172 patients underwent LPLND, and 628 patients underwent EPLND.The age of the patients in the LPLND group was 67 (62, 72) years old, diagnosed PSA 20.7 (10.9, 54.8) ng/ml. The biopsy Gleason score 6 in 22 cases, 7 in 59 cases, 8 in 56 cases and 9-10 in 35 cases.The clinical T stage: T 1 in 29 cases, T 2 in 102 cases, T 3 in 37 cases, T 4 in 4 cases; N 0 in 160 cases and N 1 in 12 cases. 50 patients received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. The age of patients in the EPLND group was 67 (63, 72) years old, diagnosed PSA was 23.9 (14.0, 46.8) ng/ml. Biopsy Gleason Score 6 in 51 cases, 7 in 194 cases, 8 in 218 cases and 9-10 in 165 cases. Clinical T stage: T 1 in 114 cases, T 2 in 341 cases, T 3 in 144 cases, T 4 in 29 cases; N 0 in 526 cases and N 1 in 102 cases.158 patients received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. There were no significant differences in the age, PSA, puncture Gleason score, clinical T stage, and whether or not to receive neoadjuvant hormonal therapy between the two groups of patients ( P>0.05). The difference in clinical N staging was statistically significant ( P=0.002). The number of postoperative lymph nodes, positive pelvic lymph nodes and postoperative complications and other related clinical and pathological data of the two groups were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the risk factors of patients with positive lymph nodes. Results:The median number of lymph nodes harvested [13(8, 19)vs. 6(4, 13), P<0.001] and the rate of positive lymph node cases[31.2%(196/628) vs. 10.5%(18/172), P<0.001] in the EPLND group was significantly higher than those in the LPLND group. Preoperative PSA, clinical N staging, Gleason score, and way of lymph node dissection were independent risk factors for postoperative positive pelvic lymph node in high-risk prostate cancer patients. Compared with the LPLND group, the ELPND group had a higher postoperative complication rate [19.9%(125/628) vs. 11.0%(11/172), P=0.007]. Conclusions:Compared with the LPLND, EPLND in high-risk prostate cancer patients can harvest more lymph nodes and increase the detection rate of positive lymph nodes. The complications of EPLND were higher than those of LPLND. Preoperative PSA, clinical N stage, Gleason score, and the way of lymph node dissection are independent risk factors for positive pelvic lymph node dissection.