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.

  • Review
  • Published:

Lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: where do we stand?

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 12, pages 227–232 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Since the initial report of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in 2001, the technique has gained rapid acceptance and utilization. When compared with more traditional forms of surgical intervention, there is still much debate with respect to cost, and impact on potency and continence. Less often is the focus on oncologic outcomes. Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of prostatectomy is an important part of the surgical intervention for prostate cancer and is currently underreported during robotic procedures. Herein, we review the current controversies on the value and extent of PLND and the status of emerging data regarding robot-assisted PLND.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Walsh PC . Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 1998; 160 (6 Pt 2): 2418–2424.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Trabulsi EJ, Hassen WA, Touijer AK, Saranchuk JW, Guillonneau B . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a review of techniques and results worldwide. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2003; 55: 239–250.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Menon M, Hemal AK . Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy: experience in more than 1000 cases. J Endourol 2004; 18: 611–619; discussion 619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV . Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003; 170: 1738–1741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith Jr JA, Chan RC, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178: 2385–2389; discussion 2389–2390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E et al. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol 2007; 178: 478–482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guru KA, Sternberg K, Wilding GE, Tan W, Butt ZM, Mohler JL et al. The lymph node yield during robot-assisted radical cystectomy. BJU Int 2008; 102: 231–234; discussion 234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ung JO, Richie JP, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D’Amico AV . Evolution of the presentation and pathologic and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed during the PSA era. Urology 2002; 60: 458–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chu KC, Tarone RE, Freeman HP . Trends in prostate cancer mortality among black men and white men in the United States. Cancer 2003; 97: 1507–1516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Derweesh IH, Kupelian PA, Zippe C, Levin HS, Brainard J, Magi-Galluzzi C et al. Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol 2004; 22: 300–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Okuno H, Terai A, Terachi T, Ogawa O . Per-operative frozen section examination of pelvic nodes is unnecessary for the majority of clinically localized prostate cancers in the prostate-specific antigen era. Int J Urol 2000; 7: 281–286.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heesakkers RA, Hovels AM, Jager GJ, van den Bosch HC, Witjes JA, Raat HP et al. MRI with a lymph-node-specific contrast agent as an alternative to CT scan and lymph-node dissection in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective multicohort study. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 850–856.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jeschke S, Beri A, Grull M, Ziegerhofer J, Prammer P, Leeb K et al. Laparoscopic radioisotope-guided sentinel lymph node dissection in staging of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 126–132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D . Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1781–1788.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, Kiernan M, Crawford D, Wilding G et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 472–479.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Da Pozzo LF, Cozzarini C, Briganti A, Suardi N, Salonia A, Bertini R et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with prostate cancer and nodal metastases treated by pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical prostatectomy: the positive impact of adjuvant radiotherapy. Eur Urol 2009; e-pub ahead of print 4 February 2009.

  18. Daneshmand S, Quek ML, Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cai J, Pinski J et al. Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long-term results. J Urol 2004; 172 (6 Pt 1): 2252–2255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Siddiqui S, Bagniewski S, Bergstralh EJ, Karnes RJ et al. Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2007; 178 (3 Pt 1): 864–870; discussion 870–861.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Fleischmann A, Studer UE . Good outcome for patients with few lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 344–352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Joslyn SA, Konety BR . Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 2006; 68: 121–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pagliarulo V, Hawes D, Brands FH, Groshen S, Cai J, Stein JP et al. Detection of occult lymph node metastases in locally advanced node-negative prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 2735–2742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Klein EA, Kattan M, Stephenson A, Vickers A . How many lymphadenectomies does it take to cure one patient? Eur Urol 2008; 53: 13–15; discussion 18–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Musch M, Klevecka V, Roggenbuck U, Kroepfl D . Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol 2008; 179: 923–928; discussion 928–929.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kawakami J, Meng MV, Sadetsky N, Latini DM, Duchane J, Carroll PR . Changing patterns of pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2006; 176 (4 Pt 1): 1382–1386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML . The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2005; 173: 1121–1125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Weight CJ, Reuther AM, Gunn PW, Zippe CR, Dhar NB, Klein EA . Limited pelvic lymph node dissection does not improve biochemical relapse-free survival at 10 years after radical prostatectomy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2008; 71: 141–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R . Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 2002; 167: 1681–1686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Fleischmann A, Studer UE . Is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary in patients with a serum PSA<10 ng/ml undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2006; 50: 272–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997; 277: 1445–1451.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Scardino P . Update: NCCN prostate cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2005; 3 (Suppl 1): S29–S33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang D, Lawton C . Pelvic lymph node irradiation for prostate cancer: who, why, and when? Semin Radiat Oncol 2008; 18: 35–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE . Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 2002; 168: 514–518; discussion 518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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: 118–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Berglund RK, Sadetsky N, DuChane J, Carroll PR, Klein EA . Limited pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy does not affect 5-year failure rates for low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2007; 177: 526–529; discussion 529–530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MS, Chang SS, Smith Jr ER, Wells N et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169: 145–147; discussion 147–148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Weingartner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A, Gerharz EW, Voge D, Riedmiller H . Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol 1996; 156: 1969–1971.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, Gallina A, Zanni G, Scattoni V et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2007; 69: 147–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Briganti A . Platinum priority—rebuttal from author re: George N. Thalmann. Positive lymph nodes at lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: where do we set the tiller? Eur Urol 2008; e-pub ahead of print 19 November 2008. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.10.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Secin FP, Jiborn T, Bjartell AS, Fournier G, Salomon L, Abbou CC et al. Multi-institutional study of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in prostate cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 134–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Da Pozzo LF et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 1006–1013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Studer UE, Collette L . Morbidity from pelvic lymphadenectomy in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 887–889; discussion 889–892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Walsh PC, Partin AW . Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. In: Wein AJ (ed). Campell-Walsh Urology, 9th edn. Vol 9 Saunders Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, 2007, pp 2956–2978.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Binder J, Kramer W . Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001; 87: 408–410.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hu JC, Hevelone ND, Ferreira MD, Lipsitz SR, Choueiri TK, Sanda MG et al. Patterns of care for radical prostatectomy in the United States from 2003 to 2005. J Urol 2008; 180: 1969–1974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J . Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 2003; 169: 2289–2292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Esposito MP, Ilbeigi P, Ahmed M, Lanteri V . Use of fourth arm in da Vinci robot-assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy: novel technique. Urology 2005; 66: 649–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Joseph JV, Rosenbaum R, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR . Robotic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: an alternative approach. J Urol 2006; 175 (3 Pt 1): 945–950; discussion 951.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Prasad SM, Keating NL, Wang Q, Pashos CL, Lipsitz S, Richie JP et al. Variations in surgeon volume and use of pelvic lymph node dissection with open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Urology 2008; 72: 647–652; discussion 652–643.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Bhandari A et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31: 701–717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M . Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer 2007; 110: 1951–1958.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Patel VR, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, Samavedi S . Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative outcomes of 1500 cases. J Endourol 2008; 22: 2299–2305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY, Yoshida JS, Crocitto LE, Kawachi MH et al. The impact of prostate gland weight in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008; 180: 928–932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Shikanov SA, Thong A, Gofrit ON, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL et al. Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for biopsy Gleason 8 to 10: prediction of favorable pathologic outcome with preoperative parameters. J Endourol 2008; 22: 1477–1481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Feicke A, Baumgartner M, Talimi S, Schmid DM, Seifert HH, Muntener M et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: surgical technique and experience with the first 99 cases. Eur Urol 2008; e-pub ahead of print 13 December 2008.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of California, San Diego, Medical Center, San Diego, CA, USA

    J L Silberstein, I H Derweesh & C J Kane

  2. Division of Urologic Oncology, Moores UCSD Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Diego, CA, USA

    J L Silberstein, I H Derweesh & C J Kane

  3. Division of Urology, San Diego Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, CA, USA

    J L Silberstein, I H Derweesh & C J Kane

Authors
  1. J L Silberstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I H Derweesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C J Kane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J L Silberstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silberstein, J., Derweesh, I. & Kane, C. Lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: where do we stand?. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 12, 227–232 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2009.17

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2009.17

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links