Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Clinical Research
  • Published:

Predictive role of node-rads score in patients with prostate cancer candidates for radical prostatectomy with extended lymph node dissection: comparative analysis with validated nomograms

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 26, pages 379–387 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background and objectives

The Reporting and Data System (RADS) have been used in the attempts to standardize the results of oncological scans in different scenarios, such as lymph nodes, adding configuration criteria to size determination. We analyze the predictive value of preoperative Node-RADS determination at imaging for pelvic lymph node (PLN) involvement in cases of prostate cancer (PC) considered for radical prostatectomy (RP) with extended lymph node dissection (eLND) and we compare it with validate predictive nomograms (MSKCC, Briganti and Gandaglia).

Methods

150 patients with a histological diagnosis of PC (high risk or intermediate with an estimated risk for pN+ higher than 5% using the Briganti or 7% using the Gandaglia nomogram) submitted for RP with an ePLND from 2018 and 2021 were retrospectively examined. Node-RADS determination was performed in all cases using the preoperative magnetic resonance (MR), performed by a radiologist blinded for pathologic results and compared with the MSKCC, Briganti 2012, Gandaglia 2017 and Gandaglia 2019 nomograms.

Results

PLN involvement at final pathology (pN+) was found in 36/150 (24.0%) of cases and the mean percentage of positive LNs in pN+ cases was 15.90 ± 13.40. The mean number of PLNs removed at RP was similar (p = 0.188) between pN0 (23.9 ± 8.0) and pN+ (25.3 ± 8.0) cases. Considering a Node RADS 4–5 positive and a Node RADS 1–2 negative, the PPV was 100% and the NPV was 79.6%. A Node RADS score 4–5 showed a lower sensitivity (0.167 versus 0.972, 1.000, 0.971, 0.960 respectively), a higher specificity (1.000 versus 0.079, 0.096, 0.138, 0.186 respectively) and a similar AUC (0.583 versus 0.591, 0.581, 0.574, 0.597 respectively) when compared to MSKCC, Briganti 2012, Gandaglia 2017 and Gandaglia 2019 nomograms.

Conclusions

Our evaluation suggests that Node RADS score, combining configuration criteria to size determination could improve specificity in terms of pathologic PLN prediction but a very low sensitivity has been also described.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Bar-chart showing Node RADS score distribution (percentage of cases) between pN0 and pN+ cases.
Fig. 2: ROC curve and AUC predicting PLN involvement.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Database including all data obtained for this analysis is available with the code: #9645 A at the following mail address for request: alessandro.sciarra@uniroma1.it.

References

  1. Sciarra A, Voria G, Monti S, Mazzone L, Mariotti G, Pozza M, et al. Clinical understaging in patients with prostate adenocarcinoma submitted to radical prostatectomy: predictive value of serum chromogranin A. Prostate 2004;58:421–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN: Prostate Cancer: European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines 2021. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/

  3. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gandaglia G, Fosati N, Zaffuto E, Bandini M, Dell’Oglio P, Bravi CA, et al. Development and internal validation of a novel model to identify the candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;72:632.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Yuan CY, Briers E, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lestingi JFP, Guglielmetti GB, Trinh QD, Coelho RF, Pontes J Jr, Bastos DA, et al. Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early oncological outcomes from a randomized phase 3 trial. Eur Urol. 2021;79:595–604.

  7. Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, Mattei A, Fiori C, Fossati N, et al. A novel nomogram to identify candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75:506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Milonas D, Venclovas Z, Muilwijk T, Jievaltas M, Joniau S. External validation of MSKCC nomogram and prediction of optimal candidate for lymph node dissection in clinically localized prostate cancer: Cetral Eur. J Urol. 2020;73:25.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brown G, Richards CJ, Bourne MW. Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in reactal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology. 2003;227:371–377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Curtin HD, Ishwaran H, Mancuso AA, Dalley RW, Caudry DJ, McNeil BJ. Comparison of CT and MR imaging in staging of neck metastases. Radiology. 1998;207:123–130.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. D’Orsi CJ, Kopans DB. Mammography interpretation: the BI-RADS method. Am Fam Phys. 1997;55:1548–1552.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Elsholtz FHJ, Asbach P, Haas M, Becker M, Beets-tan RGH, Thoeny HC, et al. Introducing the node reporting and Data System 1.0 (Node RADS): a concept for standardized assessment of lymph nodes in cancer. Eur Radio. 2021;31:6116–6124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Venclovas Z, Muilwijk T, Matjosaitis A, Jievaltas M, Joniau S, Milonas D. Head-to-head comparison of two nomograms predicting probability of lymph node invasion in prostate cancer and the therapeutic impact of higher nomogram threshold. J Clin Med. 2021;10-1:11.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gandaglia G, Martini A, Ploussard G, Fossati N, Stabile A, De, et al. External validation of th 2019 Briganti nomogram for the identification of prostate cancer patients who should be considered for an extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2020;78:138–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fossati N, Willemse PP, Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Yuan CY, Mottet N, et al. The benefit and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72:84–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thoeny H, Barbieri S, Froehlich J, Tukhey B, Choyke P. Functional and targeted lymph node imaging in prostate cancer. Radiology. 2017;285:728–742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Meijer D, van Leeuwen PJ, Roberts MJ, Siriwardana AR, Morton A, Yaxley JW, et al. External validation and addition of prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography to the most frequently used nomograms for the prediction of pelvic lymph node metastases: an international multicenter study. Eur Urol. 2021;80:234–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Washington SL 3rd, Cowan JE, Herlemann A, Zuniga KB, Masic S, Nguyen HG, et al. Influence of pelvic lymph node dissection and node-positive diseaseon biochemical recurrence, secondary treatment, and survival after radicalprostatectomy in men with prostate cancer. Prostate 2021;81:102–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Touijer KA, Sjoberg DD, Benfante N, Laudone VP, Ehdaie B, Eastham JA, et al. Limited versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4:532–539.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Salciccia S, Cattarino S, Lisi D, Gentilucci A, et al. Modern role of magnetic resonance and spectroscopy in the imaging of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2011;29:12–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor M, Gabe R, Padhani AR, Rockall A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24:596–611.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hovels A, Heesakkers R, Adang E, Jager G, Trum S. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radio. 2008;63:387–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiologic Sciences, University Sapienza of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Sara Lucciola, Martina Lucia Pisciotti & Valeria Panebianco

  2. Department of Urology, University Sapienza, Rome, Italy

    Marco Frisenda, Francesco Del Giudice, Vittorio Canale, Emiliano Scarrone, Cosimo De Nunzio, Andrea Tubaro, Costantino Leonardo, Giorgio Franco, Giovanni Battista Di Pierro, Stefano Salciccia & Alessandro Sciarra

  3. Department of Pathology, University Sapienza, Rome, Italy

    Fabio Magliocca

  4. Department of Urology, Viterno Hospital, Viterbo, Italy

    Alessandro Gentilucci

  5. Department of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy

    Gian Maria Busetto, Giuseppe Carrieri & Luigi Cormio

  6. Department of Urology, ICOT, University Sapienza, Latina, Italy

    Antonio Carbone & Antonio Pastore

Authors
  1. Sara Lucciola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martina Lucia Pisciotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Frisenda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabio Magliocca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alessandro Gentilucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francesco Del Giudice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vittorio Canale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Emiliano Scarrone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Gian Maria Busetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Giuseppe Carrieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Luigi Cormio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Antonio Carbone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Antonio Pastore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Cosimo De Nunzio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Andrea Tubaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Costantino Leonardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Giorgio Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Giovanni Battista Di Pierro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Stefano Salciccia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Alessandro Sciarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Valeria Panebianco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SL: radiologic evaluation of data. MLP: radiologic evaluation of data. MF: data acquisition and data analysis. FM: pathological analysis. AG: data acquisition. FDG: data analysis and statistical analysis. VC: data acquisition and statistical analysis. ES: data acquisition. GMB: data acquisition. GC: data analysis. LC: data acquisition. AC: data acquisition. AP: data acquisition CDN: data acquisition and data analysis. AT: data acquisition. CL: data acquisition. GF: data acquisition. GDP: data acquisition. SS: study design and concept; drafting of the manuscript. AS: study design and concept; drafting of the manuscript. VP: study design and concept.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Salciccia.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lucciola, S., Pisciotti, M.L., Frisenda, M. et al. Predictive role of node-rads score in patients with prostate cancer candidates for radical prostatectomy with extended lymph node dissection: comparative analysis with validated nomograms. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 26, 379–387 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00564-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00564-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links