1,237
Views
21
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Prostate cancer

Reliability of sentinel node procedure for lymph node staging in prostate cancer patients at high risk for lymph node involvement

, , , , , , , , , & show all
Pages 896-902 | Received 11 Sep 2014, Accepted 07 Nov 2014, Published online: 16 Jan 2015
 

Abstract

Aim. To investigate the reliability of a sentinel node (SN) procedure for nodal staging in prostate cancer (PCa) patients at high risk for lymph node (LN) involvement.

Material and methods. Seventy-four patients with localized prostate adenocarcinoma, who were clinically node-negative and had a risk of LN involvement of ≥ 10% (Partin tables), were prospectively enrolled. Upon intraprostatic 99mTc-nanocolloid injection, they underwent planar scintigraphy and SPECT imaging. Surgical removal of the SN, located by means of a gamma probe, was completed with a superextended LN dissection (seLND) as a reference and followed by radical prostatectomy.

Results. In total, 470 SN (median 6, IQR 3–9) were scintigraphically detected of which 371 (median 4, IQR 2–6) were located by gamma probe and selectively removed during surgery (79%). Histopathology confirmed LN metastases in 37 patients (50%) having 106 affected LN in total (median number per patient 2, IQR 1–4). Twenty-eight patients were node positive (N+) based on the analysis of the resected SN. However, the seLND that was performed as a reference revealed nine additional N+ patients resulting in a sensitivity of 76% (28/37). In total, 15 of 37 patients (41%) had metastases in SN only and could have been spared seLND to remove all affected nodes.

Conclusion. We found a relatively low sensitivity when addressing the SN procedure for nodal staging in PCa patients at high risk for LN involvement. Importantly, only less than half of the N+ patients could have been spared a seLND to remove all affected lymphoid tissue.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported through a research grant of the IWT – Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT TBM 060793), the National Cancer Plan Action 29 (KPC_29_037) – Belgium and the ‘Stichting Emmanuel van der Schueren’ from the Flemish League against Cancer. K.H. is a fundamental clinical researcher of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO). E.L. and C.M.D. are supported by a grant from the ‘Klinisch Onderzoeksfonds (KOF)’ – University Hospitals Leuven.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Supplementary material available online

Supplementary Tables I–II to be found online at http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/0284186X.2014.987354.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.