1
|
Franzese D, Tufano A, Izzo A, Muscariello R, Grimaldi G, Quarto G, Castaldo L, Rossetti S, Pandolfo SD, Desicato S, Del Prete P, Ferro M, Pignata S, Perdonà S. Unilateral post-chemotherapy robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in Stage II non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: A tertiary care experience. Asian J Urol 2023; 10:440-445. [PMID: 38024429 PMCID: PMC10659970 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2023.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2023] [Revised: 04/26/2023] [Accepted: 05/05/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective Post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-RPLND) represents an integral component of the management of patients with non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT). Modified templates have been proposed to minimize the surgical morbidity of the procedure. Moreover, the implementation of robotic surgery in this setting has been explored. We report our experience with unilateral post-chemotherapy robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-rRPLND) for clinical Stages IIA and IIB NSGCTs. Methods A retrospective single institution review was performed including 33 patients undergoing PC-rRPLND for Stages IIA and IIB NSGCTs between January 2015 and February 2019. Following orchiectomy, patients were scheduled for chemotherapy with three cycles of bleomycin-etoposide-cisplatin. Patients with a residual tumor of <5 cm and an ipsilateral metastatic disease on pre- and post-chemotherapy CT scans were eligible for a unilateral template in absence of rising tumor markers. Descriptive statistics were provided for demographics, clinical characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative parameters. Perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes were recorded. Results Overall, 7 (21.2%) patients exhibited necrosis or fibrosis; 14 (42.4%) had mature teratoma; and 12 (36.4%) had viable tumor at final histology. The median lymph node size at surgery was 25 (interquartile range [IQR] 21-36) mm. Median operative time was 180 (IQR 165-215) min and no major postoperative complications were observed. Anterograde ejaculation was preserved in 75.8% of patients. Median follow-up was 26 (IQR 19-30) months and a total of three recurrences were recorded. Conclusion PC-rRPLND is a reliable and technically reproducible procedure with safe oncological outcomes and acceptable postoperative ejaculatory function in well selected patients with NSGCTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dario Franzese
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute, Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy
| | - Antonio Tufano
- Urology Unit, Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, “Sapienza” University, Rome, Italy
| | - Alessandro Izzo
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute, Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy
| | - Raffaele Muscariello
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute, Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy
| | - Giovanni Grimaldi
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute, Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Quarto
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute, Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy
| | - Luigi Castaldo
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute, Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy
| | - Sabrina Rossetti
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute, Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy
| | - Savio Domenico Pandolfo
- Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Sonia Desicato
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute, Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy
| | - Paola Del Prete
- Scientific Directorate, Istituto Nazionale Tumori di Napoli, IRCCS “G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy
| | - Matteo Ferro
- Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Sandro Pignata
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Uro-Gynaecological Oncology, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori “Fondazione G. Pascale”, IRCCS, Naples, Italy
| | - Sisto Perdonà
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute, Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bravi CA, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Mazzone E, Robesti D, Osmonov D, Juenemann KP, Boeri L, Jeffrey Karnes R, Kretschmer A, Buchner A, Stief C, Hiester A, Nini A, Albers P, Devos G, Joniau S, Van Poppel H, Shariat SF, Heidenreich A, Pfister D, Tilki D, Graefen M, Gill IS, Mottrie A, Karakiewicz PI, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Assessing the Best Surgical Template at Salvage Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Nodal Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: When Can Bilateral Dissection be Omitted? Results from a Multi-institutional Series. Eur Urol 2020; 78:779-782. [PMID: 32624281 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2020] [Accepted: 06/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
The best surgical template for salvage pelvic lymph node dissection (sLND) in patients with nodal recurrence from prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is currently unknown. We analyzed data of 189 patients with a unilateral positive positron emission tomography (PET) scan of the pelvic lymph node areas, who were treated with bilateral pelvic sLND after RP at 11 high-volume centers. The primary endpoint was missed contralateral disease at final pathology, defined as lymph node positive for PCa in the side opposite to the positive spot(s) at the PET scan. Overall, 93 (49%) and 96 (51%) patients received a 11C-choline and a 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET scan, respectively, and 171 (90%) and 18 (10%) men had one and two positive spots, respectively. The rate of missed contralateral PCa was 18% (34/189), with the rates being 17% (29/171) and 28% (5/18) in men with one and two positive spots, respectively. While the rate of contralateral disease did not differ between 68Ga-PSMA and 11C-choline (29% and 27%, respectively) among men with two positive spots, the rate of contralateral PCa was only 6% with 68Ga-PSMA versus 28% with 11C-choline in patients with a single positive spot. This finding was confirmed at multivariable logistic regression analysis predicting missed disease at final pathology after accounting for confounders (odds ratio: 0.24; p = 0.001). However, in men with a single positive spot at 68Ga-PSMA PET/computed tomography, the rate of single confirmed lymph node metastasis at final pathology was only 33%, suggesting the need for extended template even if unilateral dissection is performed. Awaiting confirmatory studies, patients diagnosed with a single positive spot at the 68Ga-PSMA PET scan might be considered for unilateral extended pelvic sLND. PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed the risk of missing contralateral disease in patients with a positron emission tomography (PET) scan suggestive of unilateral nodal recurrence from prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy and who were treated with bilateral salvage lymph node dissection (sLND). Variability exists according to the number of positive spots and PET tracer, with the lowest rate of missed PCa in men diagnosed with a single positive spot at a 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen PET scan (6%). If replicated, our data suggest that these patients might be considered for unilateral extended pelvic sLND.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo A Bravi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
| | - Nicola Fossati
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Nazareno Suardi
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Elio Mazzone
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniele Robesti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniar Osmonov
- Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany
| | - Klaus-Peter Juenemann
- Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany
| | - Luca Boeri
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca Granda, Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | - Alexander Buchner
- Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Stief
- Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany
| | - Andreas Hiester
- Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Alessandro Nini
- Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany; Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Saarland University Medical Center, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
| | - Peter Albers
- Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Gaëtan Devos
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Steven Joniau
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | | | - David Pfister
- University of Cologne, Department of Urology, Cologne, Germany
| | - Derya Tilki
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Inderbir S Gill
- USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|