Benefit of a more extended pelvic lymph node dissection among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: A causal mediation analysis.
cohort study
oncologic benefit
pelvic lymph node dissection
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
06
09
2020
accepted:
31
12
2020
pubmed:
19
2
2021
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
18
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The therapeutic role of extended (ePLND) versus nonextended pelvic lymph node dissection (nePLND) to remove occult micrometastases in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer (PC) is conflicting. Therefore, our aim was to quantify the direct effect of ePLND versus nePLND (removal of occult micrometastases), which is not mediated through the detection of nodal disease and potential adjuvant therapy (indirect effect). Retrospective, bi-center cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and PLND for PC (January 2006 and December 2016). Patients were followed until April 2018 for the occurrence of either biochemical recurrence or secondary therapy (composite outcome). ePLND was compared to nePLND by unweighted and weighted survival analysis (total effect) as well as by causal mediation analysis (direct and indirect effect). Positive nodal disease was detected in 71 (7%) out of 1008 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and PLND for PC (ePLND: 368 [36.5%]; nePLND: 640 [63.5%]). Survival analysis demonstrated results in favor of ePLND (unweighted hazard ratio: 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.01], p = .056; weighted hazard ratio: 0.75 [0.56-0.99], p = .044). The causal mediation analysis confirmed the total effect of 0.77 (0.71-0.82). After disentangling this total effect into an indirect effect (via detection of nodal disease and potential adjuvant therapy) and a direct effect (via removal of occult micrometastases), we identified an even more protective direct effect of 0.69 (0.63-0.75). Our results not only indicate the utility of ePLND but also that its impact is not restricted to a staging benefit and probably involves a therapeutic benefit mediated through the removal of occult micrometastases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The therapeutic role of extended (ePLND) versus nonextended pelvic lymph node dissection (nePLND) to remove occult micrometastases in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer (PC) is conflicting. Therefore, our aim was to quantify the direct effect of ePLND versus nePLND (removal of occult micrometastases), which is not mediated through the detection of nodal disease and potential adjuvant therapy (indirect effect).
METHODS
Retrospective, bi-center cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and PLND for PC (January 2006 and December 2016). Patients were followed until April 2018 for the occurrence of either biochemical recurrence or secondary therapy (composite outcome). ePLND was compared to nePLND by unweighted and weighted survival analysis (total effect) as well as by causal mediation analysis (direct and indirect effect).
RESULTS
Positive nodal disease was detected in 71 (7%) out of 1008 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and PLND for PC (ePLND: 368 [36.5%]; nePLND: 640 [63.5%]). Survival analysis demonstrated results in favor of ePLND (unweighted hazard ratio: 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.01], p = .056; weighted hazard ratio: 0.75 [0.56-0.99], p = .044). The causal mediation analysis confirmed the total effect of 0.77 (0.71-0.82). After disentangling this total effect into an indirect effect (via detection of nodal disease and potential adjuvant therapy) and a direct effect (via removal of occult micrometastases), we identified an even more protective direct effect of 0.69 (0.63-0.75).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results not only indicate the utility of ePLND but also that its impact is not restricted to a staging benefit and probably involves a therapeutic benefit mediated through the removal of occult micrometastases.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
286-294Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618-629.
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, 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.
Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199:683-690.
Fossati N, Willemse PPM, van den Broeck T, et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72:84-109.
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.
Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N, et al. Impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival of patients with node-positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3939-3947.
Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, et al. More extensive pelvic lymph node dissection improves survival in patients with node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67:212-219.
Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, Carter HB, Walsh PC. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172:1840-1844.
Chenam A, Ruel N, Pal S, et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. Can J Urol. 2018;25:9340-9348.
DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Urol. 2005;173:1121-1125.
Jung JH, Seo JW, Lim MS, et al. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection including internal iliac packet should be performed during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22:785-790.
Kim KH, Lim SK, Kim HY, et al. Extended vs standard lymph node dissection in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer: a propensity-score-matching analysis. BJU Int. 2013;112:216-223.
Masterson TA, Bianco FJ, Vickers AJ, et al. The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;175:1320-1325.
Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335:806-808.
Boccon-Gibod L, Djavan B, Hammerer P, et al. Management of prostate-specific antigen relapse in prostate cancer: a European consensus. Int J Clin Pract. 2004;58:382-390.
Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Werler MM, Mitchell AA. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155:176-184.
Lange T, Hansen KW, Sorensen R, Galatius S. Applied mediation analyses: a review and tutorial. Epidemiol Health. 2017;39:e2017035.
Textor J, van der Zander B, Gilthorpe MS, Liśkiewicz M, Ellison GT. Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: the R package ‘dagitty’. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;45:1887-1894.
van der Wal WM, Geskus RB. ipw: an R package for inverse probability weighting. J Stat Softw. 2011;14(43):23.
Steen J, Loeys T, Moerkerke B, Vansteelandt S. medflex: an R package for flexible mediation analysis using natural effect models. J Stat Softw. 2017;27(76):46.
Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70:926-937.