Changing patterns of pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE.

Kawakami J, Meng MV, Sadetsky N, Latini DM, DuChane J, Carroll PR. Changing patterns of pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. The Journal of urology. 2006 Oct 1; 176(4 Pt 1):1382-6.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 02-142 – Improving Assessment of Patient Preferences in Localized Prostate Cancer

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Widespread screening for prostate cancer in the United States has resulted in earlier tumor identification at lower stages. The fewer number of men with lymph node metastases at initial presentation has altered patterns of pelvic lymphadenectomy before definitive treatment. We characterized patterns of pelvic lymphadenectomy in conjunction with radical prostatectomy in a community based cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the CaPSURE database we identified men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Patients were stratified into 3 clinical risk groups based on serum prostate specific antigen, T stage and pathological grade. We examined temporal trends of pelvic lymphadenectomy and predictors of pelvic lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: From 1992 to 2004 the proportion of men undergoing pelvic lymphadenectomy in conjunction with radical prostatectomy decreased from 94% to 80%. Overall positive lymph nodes were identified in 0.87%, 2.0% and 7.1% of men in the low, intermediate and high risk groups, respectively. While men with high risk disease continued to undergo pelvic lymphadenectomy at a high rate (greater than 90%), the fraction of men at low and intermediate risk undergoing pelvic lymphadenectomy steadily decreased. Prostate specific antigen, Gleason sum, clinical stage and income were factors associated with pelvic lymphadenectomy. A mean of 5.7 lymph nodes (median 5.0) were removed. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of pelvic lymphadenectomy has decreased in patients at low and intermediate risk, and remained stable in patients at high risk. Further investigation of the role of extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and the potential therapeutic benefits of pelvic lymphadenectomy would better define the contemporary role of pelvic lymphadenectomy and identify appropriate candidates.