Prospective validation of an algorithm with systematic sextant biopsy to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma.

PURPOSE We prospectively validate an algorithm to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 293 patients with prostatic cancer were identified before pelvic lymph node dissection according to an algorithm developed with the classification and regression tree analysis as high-greater than 3 sextant biopsies containing any Gleason grade 4 or 5 cancer, intermediate-at least 1 biopsy dominated by Gleason grade 4 or 5 cancer but not high risk and low risk-all other patients. Observed and predicted frequencies of pelvic lymph node metastasis were compared. RESULTS The observed frequencies of lymph node metastasis were remarkably similar to the predicted frequencies, including 2.8% versus 2.2% in 85.7% of patients in the low risk group, 16.7% versus 19.4% in 10.2% intermediate and 41.7% versus 45.5% in 4.1% high, respectively. If patients in the low risk group were considered to have node negative disease the specificity and negative predictive value of the algorithm were 88.4% and 97.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our algorithm is valid as a simple and accurate tool for the prediction of pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic cancer. Those 85.7% of patients classified by the algorithm to have a low risk of lymphatic spread should not undergo pelvic lymph node dissection before definitive local treatment.

[1]  A W Partin,et al.  Serum PSA after anatomic radical prostatectomy. The Johns Hopkins experience after 10 years. , 1993, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[2]  P. Scardino,et al.  Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate cancer. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[3]  T. Shankey,et al.  Limited efficacy of preoperative computed tomographic scanning for the evaluation of lymph node metastasis in patients before radical prostatectomy. , 1996, Urology.

[4]  H. Winfield,et al.  Comparative financial analysis of laparoscopic versus open pelvic lymph node dissection for men with cancer of the prostate. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[5]  G H Hinkle,et al.  Multicenter radioimmunoscintigraphic evaluation of patients with prostate carcinoma using indium‐111 capromab pendetide , 1998, Cancer.

[6]  D. Chan,et al.  The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[7]  A. Tewari,et al.  Novel staging tool for localized prostate cancer: a pilot study using genetic adaptive neural networks. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[8]  H. Levin,et al.  Open pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: a reassessment. , 1995, Urology.

[9]  L R Kavoussi,et al.  Complications of laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[10]  Myron Tanncnbaum,et al.  Urologic pathology: The prostate , 1977 .

[11]  M. Roach.  You say either, I say either, but let's not call the whole thing off: models for predicting the risk of lymph node involvement in patients with prostate cancer. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  J. Oesterling,et al.  Frozen section detection of lymph node metastases in prostatic carcinoma: accuracy in grossly uninvolved pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. , 1986, The Journal of urology.

[13]  P. Narayan,et al.  Utility of preoperative serumprostate-specific antigen concentration and biopsy Gleason score in predicting risk of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer , 1994 .

[14]  H. Heinzer,et al.  Thromboembolic Complication Rate after Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy , 1998, European Urology.

[15]  M. Kattan,et al.  Has there been a recent shift in the pathological features and prognosis of patients treated with radical prostatectomy? , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[16]  M. Graefen,et al.  Systematic sextant biopsies improve preoperative prediction of pelvic lymph node metastases in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[17]  H. Thaler,et al.  Endo-rectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in clinically localized prostate cancer: is it accurate? , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[18]  S. Herrell,et al.  Staging pelvic lymphadenectomy for localized carcinoma of the prostate: a comparison of 3 surgical techniques. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[19]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Eliminating the need for bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in select patients with prostate cancer. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[20]  P. Cuddy,et al.  Predicting the patient at low risk for lymph node metastasis with localized prostate cancer: an analysis of four statistical models. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  M. Meng,et al.  When is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary before radical prostatectomy? A decision analysis. , 2000, Journal of Urology.

[22]  P. Scardino,et al.  Use of Systematic Biopsy Results to Predict Pathologic Stage in Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A Preliminary Report , 1998, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[23]  J. Bishoff,et al.  Pelvic lymphadenectomy can be omitted in selected patients with carcinoma of the prostate: development of a system of patient selection. , 1995, Urology.

[24]  J. Cummings,et al.  Radical perineal prostatectomy without pelvic lymphadenectomy: selection criteria and early results. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[25]  A. Stenzl,et al.  Prognosis of patients with stage D1 prostate carcinoma following radical prostatectomy with and without early endocrine therapy. , 1990, The Journal of urology.