Volume 64, Issue 3 pp. 399-404

Original Article

Total submission of pelvic lymphadenectomy tissues removed during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer increases lymph node yield and detection of micrometastases

Joanna Perry-Keene,

Joanna Perry-Keene

Aquesta Pathology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Peter Ferguson,

Peter Ferguson

Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand

Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author

Hemamali Samaratunga,

Corresponding Author

Hemamali Samaratunga

Aquesta Pathology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Address for correspondence: H Samaratunga, Aquesta Uropathology, 21 Lissner Street, Toowong, QLD 4066, Australia. e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

John N Nacey,

John N Nacey

Department of Surgery, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author

Brett Delahunt,

Brett Delahunt

Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author

Joanna Perry-Keene,

Joanna Perry-Keene

Aquesta Pathology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Peter Ferguson,

Peter Ferguson

Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand

Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author

Hemamali Samaratunga,

Corresponding Author

Hemamali Samaratunga

Aquesta Pathology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Address for correspondence: H Samaratunga, Aquesta Uropathology, 21 Lissner Street, Toowong, QLD 4066, Australia. e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

John N Nacey,

John N Nacey

Department of Surgery, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author

Brett Delahunt,

Brett Delahunt

Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 26 August 2013

https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12262

Citations: 33

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Aims

The detection of lymph node metastases has prognostic and therapeutic implications for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Macroscopic identification of pelvic lymph nodes in surgical lymphadenectomy specimens can be difficult, with a potential for incomplete submission of lymph nodes for microscopic examination. This study was undertaken to determine whether complete sampling of lymphadenectomy specimens would improve the detection of metastatic disease in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Methods and results

We examined 109 pelvic lymphadenectomies accompanying radical prostatectomy specimens to assess the benefit of complete submission of the lymph node packets to detect extra lymph nodes and metastatic disease. We found that blocking the residual tissue, after all palpable lymph nodes had been identified, increased the mean number of lymph nodes from 3.8 to 10.8, with an average of 0.84 macroscopically undetectable nodes being recovered per block submitted. Metastatic prostate cancer was identified in eight cases, one of which had cancer in an impalpable lymph node only.

Conclusions

Submission of all pelvic lymphadenectomy tissue for histological examination improves the yield of lymph nodes and the detection of metastatic prostate cancer.

References

1Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S. Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2007; 52; 29–37.
10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.020
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Barth PJ, Gerharz EW, Ramaswamy A, Riedmiller H. The influence of lymph node counts on the detection of pelvic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer. Pathol. Res. Pract. 1999; 195; 633–636.
10.1016/S0344-0338(99)80128-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod. Pathol. 2011; 24; 39–47.
10.1038/modpathol.2010.160
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod. Pathol. 2011; 24; 6–15.
10.1038/modpathol.2010.178
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005; 29; 1228–1242.
10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Whittemore DE, Hick EJ, Carter MR et al. Significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 radical prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 2008; 179; 516–522.
10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.085
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2000; 24; 563–569.
10.1097/00000478-200004000-00011
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Da Pozzo LF, Cozzarini C, Briganti A et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with prostate cancer and nodal metastases treated by pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical prostatectomy: the positive impact of adjuvant radiotherapy. Eur. Urol. 2009; 55; 1003–1011.
10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.046
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Siddiqui S et al. Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J. Urol. 2007; 178; 864–871.
10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.048
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Lawton CA, Winter K, Grignon D, Pilepich MV. Androgen suppression plus radiation versus radiation alone for patients with stage D1/pathologic node-positive adenocarcinoma of the prostate: updated results based on national prospective randomized trial Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 85-31. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005; 23; 800–807.
10.1200/JCO.2005.08.141
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M et al. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999; 341; 1781–1788.
10.1056/NEJM199912093412401
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7; 472–479.
10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70700-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Hövels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EM et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin. Radiol. 2008; 63; 387–395.
10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Heidenreich 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.
10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65177-4
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Créhange G, Chen CP, Hsu CC et al. Management of prostate cancer patients with lymph node involvement: a rapidly evolving paradigm. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2012; 38; 956–967.
10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.05.005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Catalona WJ, Smith DS. Cancer recurrence and survival rates after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: intermediate-term results. J. Urol. 1998; 160; 2428–2434.
10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62204-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J. Urol. 1994; 152; 1831–1836.
10.1016/S0022-5347(17)32396-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Okegawa T, Nutahara K, Higashihara E. Detection of micrometastatic prostate cancer cells in the lymph nodes by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction is predictive of biochemical recurrence in pathological stage T2 prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2000; 163; 1183–1188.
10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67718-X
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Miyake H, Kurahashi T, Hara I, Takenaka A, Fujisawa M. Significance of micrometastases in pelvic lymph nodes detected by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. BJU Int. 2007; 99; 315–320.
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06622.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Schostak M, Krause H, Miller K et al. Does the molecular staging in pelvic lymph nodes improve the detection of relevant prostate cancer metastases? An assessment after 6 years. BJU Int. 2007; 99; 1409–1414.
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06861.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Godoy G, von Bodman C, Chade DC et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: frequency and distribution of nodal metastases in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series. J. Urol. 2012; 187; 2082–2086.
10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.079
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Gordetsky J, Scosyrev E, Rashid H et al. Identifying additional lymph nodes in radical cystectomy lymphadenectomy specimens. Mod. Pathol. 2012; 25; 140–144.
10.1038/modpathol.2011.137
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Briganti A, Chun FK-H, Salonia A et al. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion based on the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2006; 98; 788–793.
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06318.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Mazzola C, Savage C, Ahallal Y et al. Nodal counts during pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: an objective indicator of quality under the influence of very subjective factors. BJU Int. 2012; 109; 1323–1328.
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10610.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Alagiri M, Colton MD, Seidmon EJ, Greenberg RE, Hanno PM. The staging pelvic lymphadenectomy: implications as an adjunctive procedure for clinically localized prostate cancer. Br. J. Urol. 1997; 80; 243–246.
10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00233.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Stone 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.
10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64161-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, Carter HB, Walsh PC. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2004; 172; 1840–1844.
10.1097/01.ju.0000140912.45821.1d
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure? J. Urol. 2003; 169; 849–854.
10.1097/01.ju.0000049032.38743.c7
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29Weingärtner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A et al. Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J. Urol. 1996; 156; 1969–1971.
10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65406-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R et al. Lymph node count threshold for optimal pelvic lymph node staging in prostate cancer. Int. J. Urol. 2012; 19; 645–651.
10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.02993.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31Briganti A, Chun FK-H, 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.
10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.015
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32Clark 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.
10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64055-4
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume64, Issue3

February 2014

Pages 399-404

Total submission of pelvic lymphadenectomy tissues removed during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer increases lymph node yield and detection of micrometastases

Abstract

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Total submission of pelvic lymphadenectomy tissues removed during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer increases lymph node yield and detection of micrometastases

Abstract

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information