Advertisement

Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer and Nomograms

  • Emanuele Zaffuto
  • Giorgio Gandaglia
  • Nicola Fossati
  • Francesco Montorsi
  • Alberto Briganti
Chapter

Abstract

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the most accurate staging procedure for assessing nodal status in patients undergoing surgical treatment for PCa. In particular, an anatomically defined extended template would allow properly sampling up to 75% of possible positive stations. The use of clinical nomograms provides good predictive accuracy and might guide clinicians in the identification of patients at higher risk of LNI, who should therefore receive an extended lymph node dissection. This is reflected also by the current urological clinical guidelines. Of note, PLND also has a role in the context of recurrent disease after primary surgical treatment.

Keywords

Complications Dissection extent Nomograms Lymph node excision Lymph node invasion 

References

  1. 1.
    Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent—update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):124–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58(6):843–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Danella JF, DeKernion JB, Smith RB, Steckel J. The contemporary incidence of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer: implications for laparoscopic lymph node dissection. J Urol. 1993;149(6):1488–91. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7684789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, Jeldres C, Tian Z, Briganti A, et al. Lymph node count threshold for optimal pelvic lymph node staging in prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2012;19(7):645–51. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22416788.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kluth LA, Abdollah F, Xylinas E, Rieken M, Fajkovic H, Sun M, et al. Pathologic nodal staging scores in patients treated with radical prostatectomy: a postoperative decision tool. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):439–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N, Warncke SH, Thalmann GN, Krause T, et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol. 2008;53(1):118–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joniau S, Van Den Bergh L, Lerut E, Deroose CM, Haustermans K, Oyen R, et al. Mapping of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):450–8. Available from:.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.057.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Salonia A, Nini A, et al. More extensive pelvic lymph node dissection improves survival in patients with node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67(2):212–9. Available from:.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keegan KA, Cookson MS. Complications of pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12(3):203–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Musch M, Klevecka V, Roggenbuck U, Kroepfl D. Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1,380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol. 2008;179(3):923–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Briganti A, Abdollah F, Nini A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Capitanio U, et al. Performance characteristics of computed tomography in detecting lymph node metastases in contemporary patients with prostate cancer treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1132–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P, Picchio M, Corti B, Briganti A, et al. 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):392–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Budiharto T, Joniau S, Lerut E, Van Den Bergh L, Mottaghy F, Deroose CM, et al. Prospective evaluation of 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the nodal staging of prostate cancer with a high risk of lymph node metastases. Eur Urol. 2011;60(1):125–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evangelista L, Guttilla A, Zattoni F, Muzzio PC, Zattoni F. Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involvement identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;63(6):1040–8. Available from: <Go to ISI>://WOS:000319115900018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):480–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim KH, Lim SK, Kim HY, Han WK, Choi YD, Chung BH, et al. Yonsei nomogram to predict lymph node invasion in Asian men with prostate cancer during robotic era. BJU Int. 2014;113(4):598–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI, Chun FKH, Gallina A, Salonia A, Zanni G, et al. Percentage of positive biopsy cores can improve the ability to predict lymph node invasion in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2007;51(6):1573–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Briganti A, Chun FKH, Salonia A, Zanni G, Gallina A, Dehò F, et al. A nomogram for staging of exclusive nonobturator lymph node metastases in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2007;51(1):112–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Godoy G, Chong KT, Cronin A, Vickers A, Laudone V, Touijer K, et al. Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection and the impact of standard template dissection on nomogram prediction of lymph node involvement. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):195–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Narayan P, Fournier G, Gajendran V, Leidich R, Lo R, Wolf JSJ, et al. Utility of preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen concentration and biopsy Gleason score in predicting risk of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Urology. 1994;44(4):519–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roach M 3rd, Marquez C, Yuo HS, Narayan P, Coleman L, Nseyo UO, et al. Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;28(1):33–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy gleason score (partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology. 2007;69(6):1095–101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA, et al. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;170(November):1798–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kluth LA, Abdollah F, Xylinas E, Rieken M, Fajkovic H, Seitz C, et al. Clinical nodal staging scores for prostate cancer: a proposal for preoperative risk assessment. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(2):213–9. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/bjc.2014.311PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kattan MW, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 1997;79(3):528–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Briganti A, Capitanio U, Abdollah F, Gallina A, Suardi N, Bianchi M, et al. Assessing the risk of lymph node invasion in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. A novel prediction tool. Prostate. 2012;72(5):499–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Schwartz LH, Eberhardt SC, Chen H-N, et al. Combined endorectal and phased-array MRI in the prediction of pelvic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(3):743–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Poulakis V, Witzsch U, De Vries R, Emmerlich V, Meves M, Altmannsberger HM, et al. Preoperative neural network using combined magnetic resonance imaging variables, prostate-specific antigen, and gleason score for predicting prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2004;64(6):1165–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gandaglia G, Trinh QD, Hu JC, Schiffmann J, Becker A, Roghmann F, et al. The impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on the use and extent of pelvic lymph node dissection in the “post-dissemination” period. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(9):1080–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lallas CD, Pe ML, Thumar AB, Chandrasekar T, Lee FC, McCue P, et al. Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;107(7):1136–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Raghavaiah NV, Jordan WPJ. Prostatic lymphography. J Urol. 1979;121(2):178–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brössner C, Ringhofer H, Hernady T, Kuber W, Madersbacher S, Pycha A. Lymphatic drainage of prostatic transition and peripheral zones visualized on a three-dimensional workstation. Urology. 2001;57(2):389–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brössner C, Ringhofer H, Schatzl G, Madersbacher S, Powischer G, Kuber W. Sacral distribution of prostatic lymph nodes visualized on spiral computed tomography with three-dimensional reconstruction. BJU Int. 2002;89(1):44–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heesakkers RA, Hövels AM, Jager GJ, van den Bosch HC, Witjes JA, Raat HP, et al. MRI with a lymph-node-specific contrast agent as an alternative to CT scan and lymph-node dissection in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(9):850–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Passoni NM, Fajkovic H, Xylinas E, Kluth L, Seitz C, Robinson BD, et al. Prognosis of patients with pelvic lymph node (LN) metastasis after radical prostatectomy: Value of extranodal extension and size of the largest LN metastasis. BJU Int. 2014;114(4):503–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, Deserno WM, Tabatabaei S, van de Kaa CH, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(25):2491–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19038878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Evangelista L, Briganti A, Fanti S, Joniau S, Reske S, Schiavina R, et al. New clinical indications for 18F/11C-choline, new tracers for positron emission tomography and a promising hybrid device for prostate cancer staging: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2016;70(1):161–75. Available from:.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.029.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nanni C, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, Boschi S, Borghesi M, Zanoni L, et al. 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT for the detection of prostate cancer relapse: a comparison to 11C-choline PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(8):e386–91. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26053708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL, Holland-Letz T, Linhart HG, Eder M, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;42(2):197–209.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Budäus L, Leyh-Bannurah S-R, Salomon G, Michl U, Heinzer H, Huland H, et al. Initial experience of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in high-risk prostate cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;69:4–7. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283815005138Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Briganti A, Chun FKH, Salonia A, Gallina A, Zanni G, Scattoni V, 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(1):147–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dell’Oglio P, Abdollah F, Suardi N, Gallina A, Cucchiara V, Vizziello D, et al. External validation of the European association of urology recommendations for pelvic lymph node dissection in patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2014;28(4):416–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Briganti A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Abdollah F, Montorsi F. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: The mystery is taking shape. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):459–61. Available from:.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.029.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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(4):1681–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Briganti A, Chun FKH, Salonia A, Zanni G, Scattoni V, Valiquette L, et al. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49(6):1019–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, Budäus L, Jeldres C, Graefen M, et al. Decreasing rate and extent of lymph node staging in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy may undermine the rate of diagnosis of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;58(6):882–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Briganti A, Suardi N, Capogrosso P, Passoni N, Freschi M, Di Trapani E, et al. Lymphatic spread of nodal metastases in high-risk prostate cancer: the ascending pathway from the pelvis to the retroperitoneum. Prostate. 2012;72(2):186–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dimarco D, Zincke H, Sebo T, Slezak J, Bergstralh E, Blute M. The extent of lymphadenectomy for ptxno prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2005;173(4):1121–5. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022534705610191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Masterson TA, Bianco FJ, Vickers AJ, Diblasio CJ, Fearn PA, Rabbani F, et al. The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;175(4):1320–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Murphy AM, Berkman DS, Desai M, Benson MC, JM MK, Badani KK. The number of negative pelvic lymph nodes removed does not affect the risk of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;105(2):176–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 2006;68(1):121–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schiavina R, Manferrari F, Garofalo M, Bertaccini A, Vagnoni V, Guidi M, et al. The extent of pelvic lymph node dissection correlates with the biochemical recurrence rate in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011;108(8):1262–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pierorazio PM, Gorin MA, Ross AE, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Schaeffer EM, et al. Pathological and oncologic outcomes for men with positive lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy: The Johns Hopkins Hospital 30-year experience. Prostate. 2013;73(15):1673–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ji J, Yuan H, Wang L, Hou J. Is the impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy in radical prostatectomy related to the disease risk? A single center prospective study. J Surg Res. 2012;178(2):779–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Retraction. “Is the impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy in radical prostatectomy related to the disease risk? A single center prospective study” J Surg Res 2012;178:779–784. J Surg Res. 2014;189(2):373. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24983097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF, Cozzarini C, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer. a new proposal based on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N+ patients treated with radical prostatectomy, E. Eur Urol. 2009;55(2):261–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Touijer K, Rabbani F, Otero JR, Secin FP, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, 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(1):120–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Liss MA, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Jabaji R, Raheem OA, Kane CJ. Outcomes and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2013;31(3):481–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):196–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Silberstein JL, Vickers AJ, Power NE, Parra RO, Coleman JA, Pinochet R, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection for patients with elevated risk of lymph node invasion during radical prostatectomy: comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures. J Endourol. 2012;26(6):748–53. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3357075&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstractPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yuh B, Artibani W, Heidenreich A, Kimm S, Menon M, Novara G, et al. The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(5):918–27. Available from:.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.026.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Solberg A, Angelsen A, Bergan U, Haugen OA, Viset T, Klepp O. Frequency of lymphoceles after open and laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003;37(3):218–21. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12775280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Alberts BD, Woldu SL, Weinberg AC, Danzig MR, Korets R, Badani KK. Venous thromboembolism after major urologic oncology surgery: a focus on the incidence and timing of thromboembolic events after 27,455 operations. Urology. 2014;84(4):799–806. Available from:.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.05.055.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V, Viale G, Zurrida S, Bedoni M, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet. 1996;349(9069):1864–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, Mozzillo N, Elashoff R, Essner R, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy or nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(13):1307–17. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19038878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kjölhede H, Bratt O, Gudjonsson S, Sundqvist P, Liedberg F. Simplified intraoperative sentinel-node detection performed by the urologist accurately determines lymph-node stage in prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2015;49(2):97–102. Available from: http://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&from=export&id=L603090226\nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2014.968867\nhttp://sfx.library.uu.nl/utrecht?sid=EMBASE&issn=21681813&id=doi:10.3109%2F21681805.2014.968867&atitle=Simplified+intraopePubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Van den Bergh L, Joniau S, Haustermans K, Deroose CM, Isebaert S, Oyen R, et al. Reliability of sentinel node procedure for lymph node staging in prostate cancer patients at high risk for lymph node involvement. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(6):896–902. Available frorm: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1078143914003950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Brouwer O, Buckle T, Vermeeren L, Klop W, Balm A, Van Der Poel HG, et al. Comparing the hybrid fluorescent-radioactive tracer indocyanine green- 99mTc-Nanocolloid with99mTc-nanocolloid for sentinel node identification: a validation study using lymphoscintigraphy and SPECT/CT. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(7):1034–40. Available from: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84863472429&partnerID=40&md5=8dce238efb4551b484845ec89818bdcaPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hruby S, Englberger C, Lusuardi L, Schätz T, Kunit T, Abdel-Aal AM, et al. Fluorescence guided targeted pelvic lymph node dissection for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;194(2):357–63. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25896557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rigatti P, Suardi N, Briganti A, Da Pozzo LF, Tutolo M, Villa L, et al. Pelvic/retroperitoneal salvage lymph node dissection for patients treated with radical prostatectomy with biochemical recurrence and nodal recurrence detected by [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):935–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Suardi N, Gandaglia G, Gallina A, Di Trapani E, Scattoni V, Vizziello D, et al. Long-term outcomes of salvage lymph node dissection for clinically recurrent prostate cancer: results of a single-institution series with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Eur Urol. 2015;67(2):299–309. Available from:.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Abdollah F, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Stenzl A, Stief C, Tombal B, et al. Contemporary role of salvage lymphadenectomy in patients with recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):839–49. Available from:.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jilg CA, Rischke HC, Reske SN, Henne K, Grosu AL, Weber W, et al. Salvage lymph node dissection with adjuvant radiotherapy for nodal recurrence of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2190–7. Available from:.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Passoni NM, Suardi N, Abdollah F, Picchio M, Giovacchini G, Messa C, et al. Utility of [11C]choline PET/CT in guiding lesion-targeted salvage therapies in patients with prostate cancer recurrence localized to a single lymph node at imaging: Results from a pathologically validated series. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(1):38.e9–38.e16. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emanuele Zaffuto
    • 1
  • Giorgio Gandaglia
    • 1
  • Nicola Fossati
    • 1
  • Francesco Montorsi
    • 1
  • Alberto Briganti
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Oncology/Unit of UrologyIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Urological Research InstituteMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations