Prevalence of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Metastasis to Cloquet's Ilioinguinal Lymph Node

The Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Differential Diagnosis of Tuberous Vas Deferens Tuberculosis and Metastatic Inguinal Lymph Nodes

PURPOSE

To retrospective analysis and summary the features of tuberous vas deferens tuberculosis (VD TB) and inguinal metastatic lymph nodes (MLN) in routine ultrasound (US) and contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) as well as to assess the utility of CEUS in differentiating between the two diseases.

METHODS

The US and CEUS findings of patients with pathologically confirmed tuberous VD TB (n = 17) and inguinal MLN (n = 28), including the number of lesions, presence of bilateral disease, differences in internal echogenicity, a conglomeration of lesions, and blood flow within the lesions, were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Routine US showed no significant difference in the number of lesions, nodule size, internal echogenicity, sinus tract, or skin rupture; however, significant differences were observed between the two conditions in the conglomeration of lesions (χ² = 6.455; p = 0.023) and the degree, intensity, and echogenicity pattern on CEUS (χ² = 18.865, 17.455, and 15.074, respectively; p = 0.000 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS can show the blood supply of the lesion, and judge the physical condition of the lesion better than US. Homogeneous, centripetal, and diffuse enhancement should prompt a diagnosis of inguinal MLN, whereas lesions with heterogeneous and diffuse enhancement on CEUS should be considered as VD TB. CEUS has great diagnostic value in differentiating between tuberous VD TB and inguinal MLN.

Utilizing clinical, pathological and radiological information to guide postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

A detectable and rising PSA following radical prostatectomy is indicative of recurrent prostate cancer. Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) with/without androgen deprivation therapy represents the main treatment option for these patients and has been historically associated with a biochemical control rate of ~70%. To determine the optimal timing, diagnostic workup, radiotherapy dosefractionation, treatment volume, and use of systemic therapy, several informative studies have been conducted in the last decade.

AREAS COVERED

This review examines the recent evidence to guide radiotherapy decision making in the SRT setting. Key topics include adjuvant vs salvage RT, utilization of molecular imaging and genomic classifiers, length of androgen deprivation therapy, inclusion of elective pelvic volume, and emerging role for hypofractionation.

EXPERT OPINION

Recently reported trials, conducted in an era prior to the routine use of molecular imaging and genomic classifiers, have been pivotal in establishing the current standard of care for SRT in prostate cancer. However, decisions about radiation treatment and systemic therapy may be tailored based on available prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Data from contemporary clinical trials are awaited to define and establish individualized, biomarker-driven approaches for SRT.

The survival benefit of different lymph node yields in radical prostatectomy for pN1M0 prostate cancer patients: Implications from a population-based study

Background and objectives

The extent and survival benefits of lymph node dissection (LND) in radical prostatectomy (RP) for pN1M0 prostate cancer (PCa) patients remained unclear and were controversial. This study aimed to determine the survival benefit of different lymph node yields in RP for pN1M0 PCa patients.

Methods

pN1M0 PCa patients who received RP and LND were identified in Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) (2010–2015). Patients were divided into two groups in SEER based on the removal of one to three regional lymph nodes (LND1 group) or four or more regional lymph nodes (LND4 group). Kaplan–Meier methods were used to calculate cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

In total, 2,200 patients were identified; 264 patients received LND1 and 1,936 patients received LND4. CSS had no significant difference between the LND4 and LND1 groups (101mon vs. 98mon, p = 0.064), and OS was higher in LND4 patients compared with LND1 patients (97mon vs. 93mon, p = 0.024); for patients with Gleason score = 9 or 10 and T3b or T4, 5-year OS was higher in patients undergoing LND4 (80.9%; 95% CI, 79.0–82.8) compared with those undergoing LND1 (67.5%; 95% CI, 60.8–74.2) (p = 0.009).

Conclusion

More lymph node yield provided better survival for patients with Gleason score = 9 or 10 and T3b or T4, but not for other pN1M0 PCa patients. The extent of LND would be determined after a comprehensive evaluation including Gleason score, tumor stage, and the general condition of the patient.