Devising and external validation of a prognostic classification of metastatic involvement risk to pelvic lymph nodes in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer
https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2015-11-4-59-64
Abstract
Objective – assessing the predictive significance of clinical, histologic and biochemical factors for prediction of metastases in pelvic lymph nodes (MPLN), devising and validating of prognostic classification.
Materials and methods. The study enrolled 1140 patients subjected to radical prostatectomy (RPE) with standard pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate adenocarcinoma: 865 of them at the classification devising stage and 275 in the course of validation.
Results. According to the findings of multivariate logistic regression analysis, PSA level, the tumor cT stage and Gleason score are independent predictors of MPLN detection after RPE (p < 0.05). The prognostic factors were stratified by score for assessing the detection of regional metastases after RPE, depending on the combination of predictors. In the group of patients with a score estimate of prognostic factors < 10, the MPLN detection rate was significantly lower than in the group of with a score estimate > 15, accounting for 3.5 % and 23.7 % respectively (р < 0.0001). In the course of validating the obtained findings in clinic, metastatic involvement of pelvic lymph nodes found in the result of RPE was diagnosed in 40.0 % of the patients with a score estimate > 15 and only in 1.3 % of those with a total estimate of prognostic factors < 10 (р < 0.0001).
About the Authors
E. A. Leusik
N. N. Aleksandrov National Cancer Centre of Belarus; Lesnoy Agrotown, Minsk District, Minsk Region, 223040, Republic of Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
P. D. Demeshko
N. N. Aleksandrov National Cancer Centre of Belarus; Lesnoy Agrotown, Minsk District, Minsk Region, 223040, Republic of Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
S. A. Krasny
N. N. Aleksandrov National Cancer Centre of Belarus; Lesnoy Agrotown, Minsk District, Minsk Region, 223040, Republic of Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
References
1. Aizer A.A., Yu J.B., McKeon A.M. et al. Whole pelvic radiotherapy versus prostate
2. only radiotherapy in the management of locallyadvanced or aggressive prostate adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75:1344–49.
3. Roach M. III, DeSilvio M., Lawton C. et al. Phase III trial comparing whole pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1904–11.
4. Fonteyne V., De Neve W., Villeirs G. et al. Late radiotherapy-induced lower intestinal toxicity (RILIT) of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the need for adapting toxicity scales and the appearance of the sigmoid colon as coresponsible organ for lower intestinal toxicity. Radiother Oncol 2007;84:156–63.
5. Abuzallouf S., Dayes I., Lukka H. Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: A summary of the literature. J Urol 2004;171:2122–7.
6. Heeboll S., Solvig J., Borre M. Prostate cancer: To scan or not to scan for lymph node involvement? Scand J Urol Nephrol 2007;41:501–6.
7. Hövels A.M., Heesakkers R.A., Adang E.M. et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a metaanalysis. Clin Radiol 2008;63(4):387–95.
8. Ganswindt U., Paulsen F., Corvin S. et al. Optimized coverage of high-risk adjuvant lymph node areas in prostate cancer using a sentinel node-based, intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67: 347–55.
9. Wang D., Lawton C. Pelvic lymph node irradiation for prostate cancer: Who, why, and when? Semin Radiat Oncol 2008;18: 35–40.
10. Roach M. III, Marquez C., Yuo H.S. et al. Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;28:33–7.
11. Nguyen P.L., Chen M.H., Hoffman K.E. et al. Predicting the risk of pelvic node involvement among men with prostate cancer in the contemporary era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:104–9.
12. Rahman S., Cosmatos H., Dave G. et al. Predicting pelvic lymph node involvement in current-era prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82(2): 906–10.
13. Yu J.B., Makarov D.V., Gross C. A new formula for prostate cancer lymph node risk. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;80:69–75.
14. Makarov D.V., Trock B.J., Humphreys E.B. et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 2007;59: 1095–101.
15. Newcombe R.G. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Statist Med 1998;17: 857–72.
16. Hanley J.A., McNeil B.J. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. J Radiology 1983;148:839–43.
Review
For citations:
Leusik E.A., Demeshko P.D., Krasny S.A. Devising and external validation of a prognostic classification of metastatic involvement risk to pelvic lymph nodes in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Cancer Urology. 2015;11(4):59-64. https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2015-11-4-59-64
Views:
771
Email this article 