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
. 2024 Feb 26;22(1):68.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-024-03344-2.

The role and controversy of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer treatment: a focused review

Affiliations
Review

The role and controversy of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer treatment: a focused review

Baonan Dong et al. World J Surg Oncol. .

Abstract

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is commonly performed alongside radical prostatectomy. Its primary objective is to determine the lymphatic staging of prostate tumors by removing lymph nodes involved in lymphatic drainage. This aids in guiding subsequent treatment and removing metastatic foci, potentially offering significant therapeutic benefits. Despite varying recommendations from clinical practice guidelines across countries, the actual implementation of PLND is inconsistent, partly due to debates over its therapeutic value. While high-quality evidence supporting the superiority of PLND in oncological outcomes is lacking, its role in increasing surgical time and risk of complications is well-recognized. Despite these concerns, PLND remains the gold standard for lymph node staging in prostate cancer, providing invaluable staging information unattainable by other techniques. This article reviews PLND's scope, guideline perspectives, implementation status, oncologic and non-oncologic outcomes, alternatives, and future research needs.

Keywords: Oncological outcomes; Pelvic lymph node dissection; Radical prostatectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Paño B, Sebastià C, Buñesch L, et al. Pathways of Lymphatic Spread in Male Urogenital Pelvic Malignancies. Radiographics. 2011;31(1):135–160. doi: 10.1148/rg.311105072. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Joniau S, Van Den Bergh L, Lerut E, et al. Mapping of Pelvic Lymph Node Metastases in Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):450–458. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.057. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Roscigno M, Nicolai M, La Croce G, et al. Difference in Frequency and Distribution of Nodal Metastases Between Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: Results of a Superextended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection. Front Surg. 2018;5:52. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00052. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lee P, Francis KE, Solomon MJ, Ramsey-Stewart G, Austin KKS, Koh C. Triangle of Marcille: the anatomical gateway to lateral pelvic exenteration. ANZ J Surg. 2017;87(7–8):582–586. doi: 10.1111/ans.13872. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Porcaro AB, Cacciamani GE, Sebben M, et al. Lymph Nodes Invasion of Marcille’s Fossa Associates with High Metastatic Load in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: The Role of “Marcillectomy”. Urol Int. 2019;103(1):25–32. doi: 10.1159/000500330. - DOI - PubMed