A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on the efficacy of extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Liang Gao (1)
  Lu Yang (1)
  Xiao Lv (1)
  Siyuan Bu (1)
  Fan Wan (1)
  Shengqiang Qian (1)
  Qiang Wei (1)
  Ping Han (1)
  Tianyong Fan (1) (2)
  
• 关键词：Extended ; Lymphadenectomy ; Meta ; analysis ; Pelvic lymph node dissection ; Prostatic carcinoma ; Systematic review
• 刊名：Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：February 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：140
• 期：2
• 页码：243-256
• 全文大小：1,803 KB
• 作者单位：Liang Gao (1)
  Lu Yang (1)
  Xiao Lv (1)
  Siyuan Bu (1)
  Fan Wan (1)
  Shengqiang Qian (1)
  Qiang Wei (1)
  Ping Han (1)
  Tianyong Fan (1) (2)
  
  1. Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
  2. Department of Urology, People’s Hospital of Deyang City, Deyang, 618000, China
  
• ISSN：1432-1335

文摘

Purpose Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) has been performed during radical prostatectomy in nearly all patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma (PCa), while the specific regions that needed to be removed demonstrated bifurcation among urologist. However, clinical studies comparing extended PLND (ePLND) with standard PLND (sPLND) and limited PLND (lPLND) reveal conflicting, or even opposing results. Methods All controlled trials comparing ePLND with sPLND or lPLND were identified through comprehensive searches of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies were then performed. Results Eighteen studies with a total of 8,914 patients were included. Regardless of being compared with sPLND or lPLND, ePLND significantly improved LN retrieval [ePLND vs. sPLND: weighted mean difference (WMD) 11.93, 95?% confidence interval (CI) 9.91-3.95, p?<?0.00001; ePLND vs. lPLND: WMD 8.27, 95?% CI 3.53-3.01, p?=?0.0006] and the detection of more LNs positive of metastasis [risk ratio (RR) 3.51, 95?% CI 2.14-.75, p?<?0.00001; RR 3.50, 95?% CI 2.20-.55, p?<?0.00001, respectively]. EPLND decreased the complication rate, but the differences were not statistically significant (RR 1.52, 95?% CI 0.87-.65, p?=?0.14; RR 1.52, 95?% CI 0.67-.45, p?=?0.32, respectively). Operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay and biochemical recurrence (BCR) were statistically insignificant between techniques. Conclusions ePLND shows benefits associated with increased LNs yield, LNs positivity, and safety, significantly with no risk of side effects. However, ePLND did not decrease BCR. Additional high-quality, well-designed randomized controlled trials and comparative studies with long-term follow-up results are required to define the optimal procedure for patients with clinically localized PCa.