International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 81, Issue 1 , Pages 8-15 , 1 September 2011

Comparison of Nodal Risk Formula and MR Lymphography for Predicting Lymph Node Involvement in Prostate Cancer

  • Willem M.L.L.G. Deserno, M.D., M.Sc.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Willem M.L.L.G. Deserno, M.D., M.Sc., Radboud University Medical Center, UMC St. Radboud, Afdeling Radiologie, 667 Postbus 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Tel: (+31) 636139786; Fax: (+31) 24-3540866
    • ,
  • Oscar A. Debats, M.D., M.Sc.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Tom Rozema, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Ansje S. Fortuin, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Deventer, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Roel A.M. Heesakkers, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Yvonne Hoogeveen, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Petronella G.M. Peer, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Jelle O. Barentsz, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Emile N.J.T. van Lin, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Received 13 January 2010 ,Revised 12 April 2010 ,Accepted 8 May 2010.

References 

  1. Nguyen PL, D'Amico AV. Targeting pelvic lymph nodes in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer despite two negative randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2055–2056author reply 2056–2057
  2. Roach M. Targeting pelvic lymph nodes in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, and confusion about the results of the randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3816–3817author reply 3817–3818
  3. Pommier P, Chabaud S, Lagrange JL, et al. Is there a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate adenocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5366–53673
  4. Roach M, DeSilvio M, Lawton C, et al. Phase III trial comparing whole-pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1904–1911
  5. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, et al. Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure?. J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):849–854
  6. Cheng L, Zincke H, Blute ML, et al. Risk of prostate carcinoma death in patients with lymph node metastasis. Cancer. 2001;91:66–73
  7. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol. 2002 Feb;167(2 Pt 1):528–534
  8. Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 2006;68:121–125
  9. Morris AD, Zietman AL, Althausen AF, et al. The value of external beam radiation in node positive prostate cancer: A multivariate analysis. Urol Oncol. 2001;6:255–260
  10. Roach M, Marquez C, Yuo HS, et al. Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer [review]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;28:33–37
  11. Nguyen PL, Chen MH, Hoffman KE, et al. Predicting the risk of pelvic node involvement among men with prostate cancer in the contemporary era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74:104–109
  12. Meng MV, Carroll PR. When is lymph node dissection necessary before radical prostatectomy? A decision analysis. J Urol. 2000;164:1235–1240
  13. Heesakkers RAM, Hövels AM, Jager GJ, 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
  14. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2491–2499
  15. Nagelkerke NJD. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika. 1991;78:691–692
  16. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong ENP, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localizes prostate cancer, a multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997;277:1445–1451
  17. Narayan P, Fournier G, Gajendran V, et al. Utility of preoperative serum prostate specific antigen concentration and biopsy Gleason score in predicting risk of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Urology. 1994;44:519–524
  18. Roach M. Predicting the risk of pelvic node involvement among men with prostate cancer in the contemporary era: Change you can believe in, or back to the future? In regard to Nguyen PL, et al. (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:316;author reply 316
  19. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1993;150:110–114
  20. Cooperberg MR, Moul JW, Carroll PR. The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8146–8151
  21. Bishoff JT, Reyes A, Thompson IM, et al. Pelvic lymphadenectomy can be omitted in selected patients with carcinoma of the prostate: Development of a system of patient selection. Urology. 1995;45:270–274
  22. Bluestein DL, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Oesterling JE. Eliminating the need for bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in select patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994;151:1315–1320
  23. El Galley RE, Keane TE, Petros JA, et al. Evaluation of staging lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer. Urology. 1998;52:663–667
  24. Hövels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EM, et al. Cost-analysis of staging methods for lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: MRI with a lymph node-specific contrast agent compared to pelvic lymph node dissection or CT. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1707–1712
  25. Salomon L, Hoznek A, Lefrere-Belda MA, et al. Nondissection of pelvic lymph nodes does not influence the results of perineal radical prostatectomy in selected patients. Eur Urol. 2000;37:297–300
  26. Heesakkers RA, Jager GJ, Hövels AM, et al. Prostate cancer: Detection of lymph node metastases outside the routine surgical area with ferumoxtran-10-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2009;251:408–414
  27. Veltri RW, Miller MC, O'Dowd GJ, et al. Impact of age on total and complexed prostate specific antigen cutoffs in a contemporary referral series of men with prostate cancer/. Urology. 2002;60(Suppl 1):47–52
  28. Bauer JJ, Connelly RR, Sesterhenn IA. Biostatistical modeling using traditional variables and genetic biomarkers for predicting the risk of prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 1997;79:952–962
  29. Narayan P, Gajendran V, Taylor SP, et al. The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy based staging, preoperative PSA and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final pathological diagnosis in prostate cancer. Urology. 1995;46:205–212

 Conflict of interest: none.

PII: S0360-3016(10)00784-4

doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.05.043

International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 81, Issue 1 , Pages 8-15 , 1 September 2011

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution