An extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) at time of radical prostatectomy remains a recommended approach by most international prostate cancer guidelines. Enthusiasts for ePLND argue that it provides optimal staging compared to any imaging with possible oncological benefit and helps patient selection for early salvage therapies. The overall benefit of ePLND to a patient, when balancing the risks of complications and the absence of level 1 evidence of improved long term prostate cancer specific survival outcomes is uncertain. However, does knowledge of some, but not all, pelvic lymph node histopathology (N-stage) following an ePLND REALLY justify the additional risks?
Prospective trials have examined the performance of Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-PET for lymph node staging compared to ePLND [1, 2]. PSMA-PET has a high specificity (95%) and positive predictive value (PPV; 87%) to detect lymph node metastases in high (specificity 93%, PPV 81%) and intermediate (specificity 96%, PPV 93%) risk patients [1, 2]. Positive lymph nodes on PSMA-PET can indicate greater histopathological lymph node burden than negative PSMA-PET and the incorporation of positive PSMA-PET findings into established nomograms has also been shown to improve their discriminative ability [3]. Therefore, a positive PSMA-PET adds value for patient management and may identify metastases outside the boundaries of an ePLND.
The impact of a false negative PSMA-PET result is a concern for clinicians. The sensitivity of PSMA-PET (40–58%) [1, 2] is higher than CT and MRI. Reassuringly, the negative predictive value (NPV) is 75–79%. Within both studies, the NPV (96%, 87%) was higher in intermediate risk patients. Novel nomograms may further enhance patient selection for ePLND. They have been shown to be applicable to all patients (regardless of MRI use) and demonstrate superior discriminative ability than older nomograms [4]. Furthermore, no metastases were found in patients with intermediate risk CAPRA scores, negative PSMA-PET and mpMRI PIRADS score of <5 with no mpMRI evidence of seminal vesicle invasion [5]. Therefore, combining negative PSMA-PET with clinical information [5] and nomograms (to indicate lymph node invasion prevalence) may serve to reduce unnecessary ePLND further [3, 4]. PSMA-PET lymph node staging performance in high-risk patients is sub-optimal (sensitivity 51%, NPV 73%) [1]. However, NPV is influenced by prevalence of lymph node invasion, where NPV of 99%, 87 and 84% are reported for prevalences of 5%, 20 and 40%, respectively. Therefore, the use of nomogram cutoffs to guide ePLND selection may be superseded by this multifaceted, bespoke approach for individual patients.
Gold standard staging should sample all metastasis sites, yet it has been clinically acceptable for the usual ePLND template to miss up to one third of pelvic metastases according to SPECT/CT/MRI with intraoperative gamma probe localisation [6]. Additionally, histopathological evaluation has limitations, detecting less positive lymph nodes than a combined molecular analysis (PSA qPCR within lymph nodes; 23% vs 52%) [7]. Within both studies, missed metastases were outside the usual ePLND template (common iliac 16–37%, para-aortic/caval 12%, pre-sacral/para-rectal 8%). PSMA-PET has confirmed anatomical limitations of ePLND, where up to 47% of patients with lymph node metastases would fall outside the ePLND template [8].
Technical expertise required for ePLND can also influence outcomes [9]. A sub-group comparison between pre-operative and post-operative PSMA-PET available for 37% of patients showed that 81% of patients with PSMA-PET suggestive of pelvic lymph node metastases on pre-operative staging had positive lymph nodes on restaging, of which 57% were persistent and 24% were recurrent to new pelvic sites [9]. A similar post-operative outcome for biochemical persistence after surgery was observed in the Hope study [2].
Use of ePLND as staging method carries morbidity, including perioperative complications (in up to 15% of patients), longer operating time, thromboembolic disease (6–10 fold increase), lymphocele formation, and potentially longer time in hospital [10]. Longer-term morbidity from the LAPPRO trial reported that patient reported moderate to severe lower limb and genital lymphoedema for 13.7% at 3 months (adjusted Risk Ratio 6.9) if they received ePLND causing significantly worse quality of life (adjusted for incontinence and erectile dysfunction). Symptoms remained at 12 and 24 months and were higher than doctor reported measures (4–5% for ePLND, 0.5–1.5% for no ePLND).
ePLND should not be mandated for any patients undergoing surgery, many factors should be considered in the PSMA PET era (Table 1).
So, what is the optimal staging modality for prostate cancer patients? It is clear that risk calculators and PSMA-PET are complementary and should be used together to inform patient selection for ePLND. Therefore, we propose some alternative care pathways instead of routine ePLND.
A positive PSMA-PET for staging at diagnosis, may prompt a plan for post-operative pelvic lymph node radiotherapy, either after an ePLND to confirm pN1 or no ePLND if pN1 is assumed from the PSMA-PET. In this scenario, radical prostatectomy is largely for local control, until trials assessing the role of surgery in oligometastatic disease are available. Radiotherapy incorporating pelvic lymph nodes is likely to be more oncologically effective than ePLND (due to wider coverage outside surgical template), whilst limiting morbidity such as lymphoedema, especially in the absence of a prior ePLND [10].
For patients with a negative pre-operative PSMA-PET, an ePLND should not be mandatory, even in high risk disease. Instead, underlying lymph node invasion prevalence should be considered to guide decision-making. If predicted LNI prevalence is high, a negative PSMA-PET should prompt the discussion about the risks and benefits of ePLND due to sub-optimal detection of lymph node metastasis with both ePLND and PSMA-PET. Ideally, a post-operative plan made a priori, with adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy to be considered in the event of post-operative PSA persistence or recurrence. For intermediate risk patients, (low prevalence) with a negative PSMA-PET, ePLND can be omitted with almost 90% confidence that significant metastases will not be missed [1], potentially with even higher confidence if a PIRADS < 5 lesion is present [5].
In the absence of contemporary level 1 evidence that early knowledge of the histological pelvic lymph node status improves outcomes with adjuvant therapy compared to an early-salvage approach, especially in a PSMA-PET triaged cohort, prospective trials are urgently needed to test these evolving paradigms due to incorporation of modern imaging already in clinical use.
References
Stabile A, Pellegrino A, Mazzone E, Cannoletta D, de Angelis M, Barletta F, et al. Can negative prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography avoid the need for pelvic lymph node dissection in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis with backup histology as reference standard. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5:1–17.
Hope TA, Eiber M, Armstrong WR, Juarez R, Murthy V, Lawhn-Heath C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for pelvic nodal metastasis detection prior to radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: a multicenter prospective phase 3 imaging trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:1635–42.
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;80:234–42.
Vis AN, Meijer D, Roberts MJ, Siriwardana AR, Morton A, Yaxley JW, et al. Development and external validation of a novel nomogram to predict the probability of pelvic lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer patients using magnetic resonance imaging and molecular imaging with prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023;6:553–63.
Franklin A, Yaxley WJ, Raveenthiran S, Coughlin G, Gianduzzo T, Kua B, et al. Histological comparison between predictive value of preoperative 3-T multiparametric MRI and (68) Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan for pathological outcomes at radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2021;127:71–9.
Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N, Warncke SH, Thalmann GN, Krause T, 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;53:118–25.
Heck MM, Retz M, Bandur M, Souchay M, Vitzthum E, Weirich G, et al. Topography of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended lymphadenectomy: results of a combined molecular and histopathologic mapping study. Eur Urol. 2014;66:222–9.
Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud FX, Samaratunga H, Yaxley WJ, Coughlin G, et al. Risk of metastatic disease on (68) gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan for primary staging of 1253 men at the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2019;124:401–7.
Meijer D, Donswijk ML, Bodar YJL, van Leeuwen PJ, Poel HGV, Vogel WV, et al. Biochemical persistence of prostate-specific antigen after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: tumor localizations using PSMA PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:961–7.
Esen T, Esen B, Yamaoh K, Selek U, Tilki D. De-escalation of therapy for prostate cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2024;44:e430466.
Acknowledgements
MJR is supported by a Clinician Research Fellowship from the Metro North Office of Research, Queensland Health and Research Support Package from The University of Queensland.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MJR wrote the manuscript; JWY, JS, IMO and DT revised and edited the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Corresponding author
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.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Roberts, M.J., Yaxley, J.W., Stranne, J. et al. Is extended pelvic lymph node dissection REALLY required for staging of prostate cancer in the PSMA-PET era?. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00821-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00821-3