Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 90, No. 3, 2013
Issue release date: April 2013
Urol Int 2013;90:277-282
(DOI:10.1159/000343993)

External Validation of the Updated Nomogram Predicting Lymph Node Invasion in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection

Gacci M. · Schiavina R. · Lanciotti M. · Masieri L. · Serni S. · Vagnoni V. · Abdollah F. · Carini M. · Martorana G. · Montorsi F.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of our study was to determine the validity of the updated nomogram [Briganti et al.: Eur Urol 2012;61:480-487] as a prediction tool for pelvic lymph node invasion (LNI) in the current era by using a large multicentric population of men who underwent extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP) at tertiary referral centers. Patients and Methods: Between 2000 and 2011, 896 consecutive patients underwent RP and ePLND at two tertiary referral centers for clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models predicting the presence of LNI at ePLND were built in. Covariates consisted of preoperative PSA, clinical stage, primary and secondary biopsy Gleason grade with or without percentage of positive cores. Patients' data were entered into a logistic model formula derived from the original publication of Briganti. The nomogram was assessed by comparing its predicted probability of LNI with the actual presence of LNI. The area under the curve was used to quantify its predictive accuracy. Results: Mean preoperative PSA, clinical and pathological stage, primary and secondary biopsy and pathological Gleason grade, such as mean number of total cores, positive cores and percentage of positive cores differed significantly between LNI-positive and LNI-negative patients (all p < 0.001 except for number of total cores, p = 0.019). The mean number of lymph nodes removed was 14.8, and LNI was found in 101 patients (11.8%). In the univariate analysis the percentage of positive cores was the most accurate predictor of LNI (72%), followed by PSA (69%), primary biopsy Gleason grade (64%), clinical stage (60%), and secondary biopsy Gleason grade (59%). The predictions of the nomogram were virtually perfect when the predicted probability was ≤20%. We tested the performance characteristics of various Briganti nomogram-derived cut-offs (1-14%) for discriminating between patients with and without LNI. In our population, 41.6% of patients were classified below the 5% cut-off proposed in the original Briganti et al. report. In the multivariate analysis these variables remained statistically significant predictors for the presence of lymph node metastases. The predictive accuracy of the full model reached 79%. Conclusions: The updated nomogram predicting LNI in patients with PCa undergoing ePLND has been externally validated, demonstrating excellent accuracy and calibration characteristics and a general applicability for predicting the presence of LNI.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011;59:61-71.
  2. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al: Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol 2006;49:1019-1027.
  3. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, et al: Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009;55:1251-1265.
  4. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R: Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 2002;167:1681-1686.

    External Resources

  5. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al: Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2007;69:147-151.
  6. Schuhmacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, et al: Is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary in patients with a serum PSA 10 ng/ml undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2006; 50:272-279.
  7. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al: The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993;150:110-114.

    External Resources

  8. Godoy G, Chong KT, Cronin A, et al: Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection and the impact of standard template dissection on nomogram prediction of lymph node involvement. Eur Urol 2011;60:195-201.
  9. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Suardi N, et al: Comparison of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:4400-4407.
  10. Heidenreich A, Pfister D, Thuer D, et al: Percentage of positive biopsies predicts lymph node involvement in men with low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. BJU Int 2011;107:220-225.
  11. Briganti A, Larcher A, Firas A, et al: Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012;61:480-487.
  12. Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N, et al: The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol 2008;53:118-125.
  13. Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S: Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007;52:29-37.
  14. Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, et al: Decreasing rate and extent of lymph node staging in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy may undermine the rate of diagnosis of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010;58:882-892.
  15. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50