OBJECTIVE - To evaluate performance of pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy within an equal access care setting over a period of time, and stratified by prostate cancer risk group and surgical technique.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
METHODS - We identified men in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital database who had open or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy from 2006 to 2013. Univariable logistic regression was used to test the association between age, race, body mass index, total biopsy cores, number of positive biopsy cores, risk group, year, center, surgical volume and surgical technique on pelvic lymph node dissection use. Multivariable logistic analysis was used to examine surgical technique and pelvic lymph node dissection performance. Spearman's correlation examined temporal changes in pelvic lymph node dissection utilization stratified by risk group and surgical technique.
RESULTS - A total of 1425 men met inclusion criteria; 67% of them underwent pelvic lymph node dissection. On multivariable analysis, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy was associated with an 92% decreased use of pelvic lymph node dissection in low-risk, 84% decreased in intermediate-risk and 91% decreased in high-risk men (all P < 0. 001). In robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, there was a trend for increased pelvic lymph node dissection utilization over time in high-risk men (Spearman; P = 0. 077) reaching ~85% in 2012-2013, which was accompanied by increased use in low-risk men (P = 0. 016). For open radical prostatectomy, fewer pelvic lymph node dissections were carried out in low-risk men over time, decreasing to ~35% (P = 0. 047) in 2012-2013, whereas rates remained high for high-risk men throughout (~95%; P = 0. 621).
CONCLUSIONS - Regardless of risk group, pelvic lymph node dissection is carried out significantly less during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. For robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection utilization increased over time for high-risk men, but rates also increased for low-risk men. Further attention to the discrepancy between provided and guideline recommended pelvic lymph node dissection performance is required to improve prostate cancer care.
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association. 2015 Dec 14 [Epub ahead of print]
Kathleen F McGinley, Xizi Sun, Lauren E Howard, William J Aronson, Martha K Terris, Christopher J Kane, Christopher L Amling, Matthew R Cooperberg, Stephen J Freedland
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. , Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. , Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. , Urology Section, Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA. , Section of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Augusta, Georgia, USA. , Urology Department, University of California San Diego Health System, San Diego, California, USA. , Department of Urology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. , Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California, USA. , Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.