Treatment of prostate cancer using external beam radiotherapy after laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection

Laparoscopic pelvic lymph-node dissection in prostate cancer before external beam radiotherapy: Risk factors of nodal involvement and relapse following intended curative treatment

OBJECTIVE

To report experience with laparoscopic pelvic lymph-node dissection (LPLND) in patients with prostate cancer before radiotherapy. Selection of risk factors for nodal involvement (N1) and recurrence following radiotherapy was made.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From November 1999 to June 2007, 177 patients with prostate cancer underwent LPLND at this department. The lymphadenectomy was limited to the obturator fossa bilaterally. Patients without nodal involvement were offered external beam radiotherapy with adjuvant hormone treatment.

RESULTS

Complications occurred in 17 patients (9%). The majority of these were minor and were managed by conservative methods. Twenty-six patients (15%) were diagnosed with N1. High Gleason score and a high percentage of positive needle core biopsies were both risk factors of N1 as well as recurrent disease following radiotherapy (p<0.01 and 0.01, respectively). Clinically, T3 disease was associated with a risk of recurrence but not N1. High prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir was also a significant predictor of recurrence. Neither pretreatment PSA nor prostate volume was associated with N1 or recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

LPLND is a safe, well-established staging modality in clinically localized prostate cancer before radiotherapy. Risk factors upon diagnosis may be useful in the estimation of N1 and risk of recurrence.

Comparing the costs of radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy for the initial treatment of early-stage prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiation are the most common treatments for localized prostate cancer. Given the absence of clinical consensus in favor of one treatment or the other, relative costs may be a significant factor. This study compares the direct medical costs during the month before and 9 months after diagnosis for patients treated primarily with external-beam radiation or radical prostatectomy for early-stage prostate cancer.

METHODS

Patients age 65 or older and coded by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry as having been diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated primarily with external-beam radiation or radical prostatectomy during 1992 and 1993 were identified. The initial treatment costs, as measured by Medicare-approved payment amounts, for each strategy were analyzed using linked SEER-Medicare claims data after adjusting for differences in comorbidity and age. An intent-to-treat analysis was also performed to adjust for differences in staging between the two groups.

RESULTS

For patients in the treatment-received analysis, the average costs were significantly different; $14,048 (95% confidence interval [CI], $13,765 to $14,330) for radiation therapy and $17,226 (95% CI, $16,891 to $17,560) for radical prostatectomy (P <.001). The average costs for patients in the intent-to-treat analysis were also significantly less for radiation therapy patients ($14,048; 95% CI, $13,765 to $14,330) than for those who underwent radical prostatectomy ($17,516; 95% CI, $17,195 to $17,837; P <.001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with early-stage prostate cancer, average costs during the initial treatment interval were at least 23% greater for radical prostatectomy than for external-beam radiation. Major limitations of the research include not studying costs after the initial treatment interval and questionable current applicability, given changes in management of early prostate cancer.

Indications, technique, and results of laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy

Despite considerable clinical research, there is still controversy about the optimal management of the pelvic lymph nodes in men with prostate cancer. This article reviews the creation and application of selection criteria for laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy and describes the various techniques.

Should laparoscopy be the standard approach used for pelvic lymph node dissection?

Involvement of the pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer worsens the overall prognosis of this common disease entity. Prior radiographic staging techniques, including fine-needle aspiration, are limited by a poor sensitivity and are not reliable. The gold standard for the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in men with prostate cancer involves performing a lymphadenectomy. Historically, this procedure was performed using an open surgical technique. Unfortunately, this invasive procedure is associated with significant morbidity. In response, modern surgical technology has provided newer, less invasive techniques, including laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy (LPLND). Improved detection of localized prostate cancer through the institution of screening protocols and early detection programs has decreased the number of patients presenting with lymph node involvement. Various clinical indicators, including prostate-specific antigen, grade, and stage, have been used to improve the selection of "high-risk" patients that are appropriate candidates for pelvic lymph node dissection. The technique of LPLND is a valid option in the armamentarium for staging of prostate cancer. The laparoscopic approach provides the same staging accuracy as the open surgical technique and is superior with respect to morbidity. LPLND is limited to patients who present with a high risk of advanced prostate cancer. In addition, the urologist must accept the additional training, financial expense, and "learning curve" associated with this technique.

Results of laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients at high risk for nodal metastases from prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy (LPLND) can be performed safely and with minimal morbidity in the staging of prostate cancer. Its utility in evaluating patients at high risk for metastatic disease before primarily nonsurgical treatment modalities was evaluated.

METHODS

Twenty-four consecutive patients who underwent LPLND between June 1993 and July 1996 were studied. These patients were considered poor surgical candidates based on several risk factors, as follows: elevation of serum PSA >20 in 19 patients (79%); elevation of serum acid phosphatase in 4 patients (17%); digital rectal examination findings indicative of extraprostatic extension or seminal vesical involvement in 14 patients (58%); and poorly differentiated tumors on prostate biopsy in 19 patients (79%). Nineteen patients (79%) had two or more of these risk factors. Median PSA for the entire series of patients was 35.2 ng/mL (range 7.9 to 133 ng/mL), and median Gleason score was 7 (range 5 to 9). Preoperative CT or MRI was negative for pelvic lymph node metastases in 17 of 23 patients (79%), and bone scan was negative in all 24 patients.

RESULTS

Unilateral (n = 2) or bilateral (n = 22) LPLND was performed in all patients. Six patients (25%) had lymph node metastases detected laparoscopically. Five of the six patients had palpable extraprostatic extension (T3a/b) or invasion of a seminal vesical (T3c), and in four of these patients the site of the metastatic lymph nodes was ipsilateral to the palpable prostate abnormality. None of the risk factors was independently predictive of lymph node metastases within this series of patients. An average of 10.8 +/- 6.5 lymph nodes was removed at a mean operative time of 174 +/- 10 minutes for patients undergoing bilateral LPLND. Estimated blood loss was minimal for 20 of 22 patients (92%) undergoing LPLND alone, and there were no complications requiring open exploration. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 1.2 +/- 0.5 days for patients undergoing LPLND alone.

CONCLUSIONS

LPLND can be used efficiently to identify patients with nodal metastases from select high-risk patients. This, in turn, can exclude such patients from noncurative local and regional therapy.