Significance of Positive Nodes and Positive Margins

  • D. F. Paulson
Conference paper

Abstract

Approximately 30% of patients with prostatic malignancy clinically confined to the organ of origin by rectal examination or by ultrasound examination have extension of malignancy to the regional pelvic lymph nodes. Involvement of the regional pelvic nodes is felt to reflect extension of the malignancy from the primary organ of origin and to identify patients at increased risk for failure following the administration of local treatment. Noninvasive imaging studies have been demonstrated to be incapable of predicting regional lymph node involvement with sufficient accuracy that clinical decisions can be reasonably made. The use of biological or biochemical markers may identify patients with an increased statistical probability of having lymph node involvement, and while they may be informative, the tests are not conclusive. In response to these facts, staging lymphadenectomy has been routinely considered as an appropriate preliminary study before definitive treatment selection of apparently organ-confined disease can be undertaken. Nonetheless, there still remain several controversial areas with respect to staging pelvic lymphadenectomy.

Keywords

Adenocarcinoma Androgen 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Flocks RH (1973) The treatment of stage C prostatic cancer with special reference to combined surgical and radiation therapy. J Urol 109:461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bagshaw MA (1979) Perspectives on the radiation treatment of prostatic cancer: history and current focus. In: Murphy GP (ed) Prostatic cancer.Littleton, Massachusetts, pp 151–174Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paulson DF (1980) The prognostic role of lymphadenectomy in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Clin North Am 7:615PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prout GR, Heaney JA, Griffin PP, et al (1980) Nodal involvement as a prognostic indicator in patients with prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 124:226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grossman HB, Batata M, Hilaris B, Whitmore WF (1982) 125I implantation for carcinoma of prostate: further follow-up of first 100 cases. Urology 20:591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kramer SA, Spahr J, Brendler CB, Glenn JF, Paulson DF (1980) Experiences with Gleason’s histopathologic grading in prostatic cancer. J Urol 124:223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rutishauser G, Hering: Personal communication.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barzell W, Bean MA, Hilaris BS, Whitmore WF (1977) Prostatic adenocarcinoma: relationship of grade and local extent to the pattern of metastases. J Urol 118:278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schmidt JD, McLaughlin AP, Saltzstein SL, et al. (1982) Risk factors for the development of distant metastases in patients undergoing pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostatic cancer. Am J Surg 144:131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    deKernion JB, Huang MY, Kaurman JJ, Smith RB (1985) Result of treatment of patients with stage D1 prostatic carcinoma. Urology 26:446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith JA, Middleton RG (1985) Implications of volume of nodal metastasis in patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 133:617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Golimbu M, Provet J, Al-Askari S, Morales P (1987) Radical prostatectomy for stage D1 prostate cancer. Urology 30:427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Okada K, Yoshida O, Paulson DF, Rutishauser G (1988) Lymph node staging in potentially curable prostatic carcinoma. In: Progress and controversies in oncological urology II. EORTC Genitourinary Group Monograph 5. Liss, New York, 211–225Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gervasi LA, Mata J, Easley JD, Wilbanks JH, Seale-Hawkins C, Carlton CE, Scardino PT (1989) Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate cancer. J Urol 142:332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barlogie B, Raber MN, Schumann J, et al. (1983) Flow cytometry in clinical cancer research. Cancer Res 43:3982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Atkin NB, Kay R (1979) Prognostic significance of modal DNA value and other factors in malignant tumors, based on 1465 cases. Br J Cancer 40:210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tribukait B (1987) Flow cytometry in assessing the clinical aggressiveness of genito-urinary neoplasms. World J Urol 5:108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rainwater LM, Hosaka Y, Farrow GM, Lieber MM (1987) Well differentiated clear cell renal carcinoma: significance of nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid patterns studied by flow cytometry. J Urol 137:15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hosaka Y, Rainwater LM, Grant CS, et al (1986) Pheochromocytoma: nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid patterns studied by flow cytometry. Surgery 100:1003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Melamed MR (1984) Flow cytometry of the urinary bladder. Urol Clin N Am 11:599Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winkler HZ, Lieber MM (1988) Primary squamous cell carcinoma of the male urethra: nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy studied by flow cytometry. J Urol 139:298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brendler CB, Cleeve LK, Anderson EE, Paulson DF (1980) Staging pelvic lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 124:849PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee SE, Currin SM, Paulson DF, Walther PJ (1988) Flow cytometric determination of ploidy in prostatic adenocarcinoma: a comparison with seminal vesicle involvement and histopathological grading as a predictor of clinical recurrence. J Urol 140:769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winkler HZ, Rainwater LM, Myers RP, et a. (1988) Stage D1 prostatic adenocarcinoma: significance of nuclear DNA ploidy patterns studied by flow cytometry. Mayo Clin Proc 63:203Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paul DB, Loening SA, Narayana AS, Culp DA (1983) Morbidity from pelvic lymphadenectomy in staging carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 129:1141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lieskovsky G (1983) Pelvic lymphadenectomy. In: Glenn JF (ed) Urologic surgery. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 939–947Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pilepich MV, Asbell SO, Mulholland GS, et al (1984) Surgical staging in carcinoma of the prostate: the RTOG experience. Prostate 5:471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anscher MS, Prosnitz LR (1987) Postoperative radiotherapy for patients with carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy with positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle involvement and/or penetration through the capsule. J Urol 138:1407PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. F. Paulson
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of UrologicSurgery Duke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations