PROGNOSITC FACTORS OF NODAL METASTASIS IN PATIENTS WITH ORGAN CONFINED PROSTATE CANCER

Roberto Sanseverino1, Giorgio Napodano1, Umberto Di Mauro1, Olivier Intilla1, Giovanni Molisso1, Antonio Pistone1, Antonio Campitelli1, Tommaso Realfonso1
  • 1 Ospedale Umberto I - ASL Salerno, U.O.C. Urologia (Nocera Inferiore)

Objective

To evaluate prognostic factors of nodal metastasis in patients affected by organ confined prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LPR).

Materials and Methods

From database of our institution, we identified patients undergone a laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy (LAD) and radical prostatectomy; data on age, BMI, PSA, PSAD, positive cores percentage, clinical stage, Gleason score, lymphadenectomy template, prostate volume, number of removed nodes were available. We correlated these variables with pathological node metastasis by logistic regression analysis (SPSS 24).

Results

Data on 183 patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics are reported in table 1. On univariate analysis, PSA, PSAD, prostate volume, biopsy Gleason score were associated with pN1. Surgical and pathological outcomes are reported in table 2. At univariate analysis, pathological stage, positive surgical margins and LAD template (obturator and external vs obturator, external hypogastric and common) correlated with pN1. At multivariate analysis, PSAD and superextended lymphadenectomy were associated with nodal metastasis.

Discussions

In our experience, nodal metastasis were present in 6.5% of patients despite a considerable average number of nodes removed. This results is probably due to a not high risk of nodal metastasis of our population. At multivariate analysis PSA density and lymphadenectomy template correlates with nodal metastasis. This evidence affirms need of an extended template during radical prostatectomy.

Conclusion

In our retrospective analysis, PSA density and superextended lymphadenectomy are prognostic factors of nodal metastasis.

Reference

Tumori Journal 2016, DOI:10.5301/tj.5000546

Urologia 2015 DOI:10.5301/uro.5000139

Argomenti: