Identification of the Optimal Candidates for Nodal Staging with Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Among Prostate Cancer Patients Who Underwent Preoperative Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography. External Validation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Briganti Nomograms and Development of a Novel Tool.

Lymph node invasion Magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy Nomogram Pelvic lymph node dissection Prostate cancer Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography Radical prostatectomy

Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Historique:
received: 14 02 2023
revised: 15 04 2023
accepted: 06 05 2023
medline: 4 12 2023
pubmed: 4 6 2023
entrez: 3 6 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Although the therapeutic role of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is still under debate, this procedure is recommended for staging purposes in selected cases. Nomograms for predicting lymph node invasion (LNI) do not account for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, which is characterized by a high negative predictive value for nodal metastases. To externally validate models predicting LNI in patients with miN0M0 PCa at PSMA PET and to develop a novel tool in this setting. Overall, 458 patients with miN0M0 disease undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and ePLND at 12 centers between 2017 and 2022 were identified. Available tools were externally validated using calibration plots, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and decision curve analyses to assess calibration, discrimination, and the net benefit. A novel coefficient-based model was developed, internally validated, and compared with available tools. Overall, 53 patients (12%) had LNI. The AUC was 69% for the Briganti 2012, 64% for the Briganti 2017, 73% for the Briganti 2019, and 66% for the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging stage, biopsy grade group 5, the diameter of the index lesion, and the percentage of positive cores at systematic biopsy were independent predictors of LNI (all p ≤ 0.04). Internal cross-validation confirmed a coefficient-based model with AUC of 78%, better calibration, and a higher net benefit in comparison to the other nomograms assessed. Use of a 5% cutoff would have spared 47% ePLND procedures (vs 13% for the Briganti 2019 nomogram) at the cost of missing only 2.1% LNI cases . The lack of central review of imaging and pathology represents the main limitation. Tools for predicting LNI are associated with suboptimal performance for men with miN0M0 PCa. We propose a novel model for predicting LNI that outperforms available tools in this population. Tools currently used to predict lymph node invasion (LNI) in prostate cancer are not optimal for men with negative node findings on PET (positron emission tomography) scans, leading to a high number of unnecessary extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) procedures. A novel tool should be used in clinical practice to identify candidates for ePLND to reduce the risk of unnecessary procedures without missing LNI cases.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Although the therapeutic role of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is still under debate, this procedure is recommended for staging purposes in selected cases. Nomograms for predicting lymph node invasion (LNI) do not account for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, which is characterized by a high negative predictive value for nodal metastases.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To externally validate models predicting LNI in patients with miN0M0 PCa at PSMA PET and to develop a novel tool in this setting.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS METHODS
Overall, 458 patients with miN0M0 disease undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and ePLND at 12 centers between 2017 and 2022 were identified.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES METHODS
Available tools were externally validated using calibration plots, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and decision curve analyses to assess calibration, discrimination, and the net benefit. A novel coefficient-based model was developed, internally validated, and compared with available tools.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Overall, 53 patients (12%) had LNI. The AUC was 69% for the Briganti 2012, 64% for the Briganti 2017, 73% for the Briganti 2019, and 66% for the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging stage, biopsy grade group 5, the diameter of the index lesion, and the percentage of positive cores at systematic biopsy were independent predictors of LNI (all p ≤ 0.04). Internal cross-validation confirmed a coefficient-based model with AUC of 78%, better calibration, and a higher net benefit in comparison to the other nomograms assessed. Use of a 5% cutoff would have spared 47% ePLND procedures (vs 13% for the Briganti 2019 nomogram) at the cost of missing only 2.1% LNI cases . The lack of central review of imaging and pathology represents the main limitation.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Tools for predicting LNI are associated with suboptimal performance for men with miN0M0 PCa. We propose a novel model for predicting LNI that outperforms available tools in this population.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
Tools currently used to predict lymph node invasion (LNI) in prostate cancer are not optimal for men with negative node findings on PET (positron emission tomography) scans, leading to a high number of unnecessary extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) procedures. A novel tool should be used in clinical practice to identify candidates for ePLND to reduce the risk of unnecessary procedures without missing LNI cases.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37270378
pii: S2588-9311(23)00086-X
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.003
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

543-552

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Giorgio Gandaglia (G)

Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: gandaglia.giorgio@hsr.it.

Francesco Barletta (F)

Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Daniele Robesti (D)

Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Simone Scuderi (S)

Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Pawel Rajwa (P)

Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland.

Juan Gomez Rivas (J)

Department of Urology, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.

Laura Ibanez (L)

Department of Urology, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.

Timo F W Soeterik (TFW)

Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Lorenzo Bianchi (L)

Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Luca Afferi (L)

Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.

Claudia Kesch (C)

Department of Urology, West German Cancer Center, University of Duisburg, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Christopher Darr (C)

Department of Urology, West German Cancer Center, University of Duisburg, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Hongqian Guo (H)

Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Jiangsu, China.

Junlong Zhuang (J)

Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Jiangsu, China.

Fabio Zattoni (F)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.

Wolfgang Fendler (W)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

Giancarlo Marra (G)

University Hospital S. Giovanni Battista, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Citta della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy.

Armando Stabile (A)

Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Daniele Amparore (D)

Department of Oncology, Division of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Turin, Italy.

Nicolai A Huebner (NA)

Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Alexander Giesen (A)

Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Steven Joniau (S)

Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Riccardo Schiavina (R)

Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Eugenio Brunocilla (E)

Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Agostino Mattei (A)

Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.

Fabrizio Dal Moro (F)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.

Jesus Moreno Sierra (JM)

Department of Urology, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.

Francesco Porpiglia (F)

University Hospital S. Giovanni Battista, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Citta della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy.

Maria Picchio (M)

Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; Department of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Roderick van den Bergh (R)

Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Francesco Montorsi (F)

Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH