Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 May 8;14(9):2326.
doi: 10.3390/cancers14092326.

Patients with Positive Lymph Nodes after Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy-Do We Know the Proper Way of Management?

Affiliations
Review

Patients with Positive Lymph Nodes after Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy-Do We Know the Proper Way of Management?

Bartosz Małkiewicz et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

Lymph node invasion in prostate cancer is a significant prognostic factor indicating worse prognosis. While it significantly affects both survival rates and recurrence, proper management remains a controversial and unsolved issue. The thorough evaluation of risk factors associated with nodal involvement, such as lymph node density or extracapsular extension, is crucial to establish the potential expansion of the disease and to substratify patients clinically. There are multiple strategies that may be employed for patients with positive lymph nodes. Nowadays, therapeutic methods are generally based on observation, radiotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapy. However, the current guidelines are incoherent in terms of the most effective management approach. Future management strategies are expected to make use of novel diagnostic tools and therapies, such as photodynamic therapy or diagnostic imaging with prostate-specific membrane antigen. Nevertheless, this heterogeneous group of men remains a great therapeutic concern, and both the clarification of the guidelines and the optimal substratification of patients are required.

Keywords: lymph node invasion; prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Risk and prognostic factors influencing outcomes in pN+ PCa patients after RP.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Therapeutic strategies in the management of patients with prostate cancer and lymph node metastases after radical prostatectomy (pN+).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L., Laversanne M., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A., Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021;71:209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Engels S., Brautmeier L., Reinhardt L., Wasylow C., Hasselmann F., Henke R.P., Wawroschek F., Winter A. Evaluation of Fast Molecular Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Prostate Cancer Patients Using One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification (Osna) Cancers. 2021;13:1117. doi: 10.3390/cancers13051117. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bernstein A.N., Shoag J.E., Golan R., Halpern J.A., Schaeffer E.M., Hsu W.C., Nguyen P.L., Sedrakyan A., Chen R.C., Eggener S.E., et al. Contemporary Incidence and Outcomes of Prostate Cancer Lymph Node Metastases. J. Urol. 2018;199:1510–1517. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.048. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Touijer K.A., Mazzola C.R., Sjoberg D.D., Scardino P.T., Eastham J.A. Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Lymph Node Metastasis Treated with Radical Prostatectomy without Adjuvant Androgen-Deprivation Therapy. Eur. Urol. 2014;65:20–25. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.053. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Swanson G.P., Riggs M., Hermans M. Pathologic Findings at Radical Prostatectomy: Risk Factors for Failure and Death. Urol. Oncol. Semin. Orig. Investig. 2007;25:110–114. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.06.003. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources