medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2022, Número 6

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Mex Urol 2022; 82 (6)


Impacto bioquímico de la omisión de la linfadenectomía en cáncer de próstata: validación de las tablas de Partin

Martínez-Hernández M, Isunza-Laisequilla A, Cruz-García-Villa P

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 30
Paginas:
Archivo PDF: 466.09 Kb.


RESUMEN

Introducción: La linfadenectomía es el método de elección en la valoración linfática en pacientes diagnosticados con cáncer de próstata. El primer reto es conocer la probabilidad de afectación con nomogramas, el más usado es el de Partin. De acuerdo con estos nomogramas, aquellos pacientes con afectación mayor al 2% tienen indicación de linfadenectomía durante la prostatectomía con finalidad terapéutica y pronóstica. La recidiva bioquímica se define como un nivel sérico de antígeno prostático específico superior a 0.2 ng/ml confirma- do al menos 4 semanas después de la prostatectomía.
Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo descriptivo y se re- visaron los registros de 150 casos de prostatectomía radical consecutiva rea- lizados entre 2007 y 2019. Un total de 109 pacientes se incluyeron. Se calculó por nomograma de Partin la probabilidad de invasión a nódulos linfáticos, y se seleccionaron todos aquellos con un porcentaje de afectación mayor o igual al 2%, Se dividieron en dos grupos: con linfadenectomía pélvica (grupo PLND) sin linfadenectomía pélvica (no-PLND). Se llevó a cabo un análisis de Shapi- ro-Wilks para comprobar la normalidad de los datos. La p fue ‹0.01 en ambos casos por lo que se procedió a llevar a cabo una prueba de Wilcoxon, usando el programa Statistica 8.0.
Resultados: Mediante una correlación de Spearman y con una p›0.01, se com- probó que no existió una relación entre el cálculo mayor al 2% de involucro de nódulos linfáticos por nomograma de Partin y la recidiva bioquímica temprana.
Conclusión: En nuestro estudio la linfadenectomía no modificó el riesgo de progresión bioquímica, por lo que el efecto terapéutico beneficioso de la linfa- denectomía sistemática podría ser muy limitado. El omitir la linfadenectomía pélvica durante la prostatectomía con un porcentaje mayor o igual al 2% en nuestro análisis no tuvo relación directa con la recidiva bioquímica. El uso de otros nomogramas ajustados a nuestra población puede marcar diferencia en estos resultados.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Khan MA, Partin AW. Management of patients with an increasing prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2004 May 1;5(3):179–87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11934-004-0035-5

  2. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong ENP, 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 May 14;277(18):1445–51. doi: https://doi. org/10.1001/JAMA.1997.03540420041027

  3. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Chan DW, Epstein JI, 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 Jul;150(1):110–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0022-5347(17)35410-1

  4. Mukamel E, Hannah J, Barbaric Z, deKernion JB. The value of computerized tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging in staging prostatic carcinoma: comparison with the clinical and histological staging. J Urol. 1986 Dec;136(6):1231–3. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)45294-3

  5. Wolf JS, Cher M, Dall’era M, Presti JC, Hricak H, Carroll PR. The use and accuracy of cross- sectional imaging and fine needle aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 1995 Mar;153(3 Pt 2):993–9. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67620-1

  6. Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, Partin MT, Humphreys EB, Han M, et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int. 2013;111(1):22–9. doi: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11324.x

  7. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001 Dec 1;58(6):843–8. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01441-8

  8. Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Rabbani F, Gerigk C, et al. A Preoperative Nomogram Identifying Decreased Risk of Positive Pelvic Lymph Nodes in Patients With Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2003 Nov;170(5):1798– 803. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01. ju.0000091805.98960.13

  9. Partin AW, Pound CR, Clemens JQ, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Serum PSA after anatomic radical prostatectomy. The Johns Hopkins experience after 10 years. Urol Clin North Am. 1993 Nov;20(4):713–25.

  10. 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 Mar;75(3):506–14. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.012

  11. 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 Mar;61(3):480–7. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044

  12. Roach M, Marquez C, Yuo HS, Narayan P, Coleman L, Nseyo UO, 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. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994 Jan 1;28(1):33–7. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)90138-4

  13. Cimino S, Reale G, Castelli T, Favilla V, Giardina R, Russo GI, et al. Comparison between Briganti, Partin and MSKCC tools in predicting positivelymph nodes in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Urol. 2017 Oct;51(5):345–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1332680

  14. Dell’Oglio P, Abdollah F, Suardi N, Gallina A, Cucchiara V, Vizziello D, et al. External validation of the European association of urology recommendations for pelvic lymph node dissection in patients treated with robot- assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2014 Apr;28(4):416–23. doi: https://doi. org/10.1089/end.2013.0571

  15. Hinev AI, Anakievski D, Kolev NH, HadjievVI. Validation of nomograms predicting lymph node involvement in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Urol Int. 2014;92(3):300–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000354323

  16. Abdollah F, Cozzarini C, Suardi N, Gallina A, Capitanio U, Bianchi M, et al. Indications for pelvic nodal treatment in prostate cancer should change. Validation of the Roach formula in a large extended nodal dissection series. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jun 1;83(2):624–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.2014

  17. Gandaglia G, Fossati 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 Oct;72(4):632–40. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.049

  18. Gandaglia G, Martini A, Ploussard G, Fossati N, Stabile A, De Visschere P, et al. External Validation of the 2019 Briganti Nomogram for the Identification of Prostate Cancer Patients Who Should Be Considered for an Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection. Eur Urol. 2020 Aug;78(2):138–42. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.023

  19. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999 May 5;281(17):1591–7. doi: https://doi. org/10.1001/jama.281.17.1591

  20. Ward JF, Moul JW. Biochemical recurrence after definitive prostate cancer therapy. Part I: defining and localizing biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2005 May;15(3):181–6. doi: https://doi. org/10.1097/01.mou.0000165552.79416.11

  21. Bhatta-Dhar N, Reuther AM, Zippe C, Klein EA. No difference in six-year biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy in low- risk patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2004 Mar;63(3):528–31. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.064

  22. Aleman M, Karakiewicz PI, Kupelian P, Kattan MW, Graefen M, Cagiannos I, et al. Age and PSA predict likelihood of organ-confined disease in men presenting with PSA less than 10 ng/ mL: implications for screening. Urology. 2003 Jul;62(1):70–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0090-4295(03)00125-0

  23. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE. 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):849–54. doi: https://doi. org/10.1097/01.ju.0000049032.38743.c7

  24. Fergany A, Kupelian PA, Levin HS, Zippe CD, Reddy C, Klein EA. No difference in biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy in low-risk patients. Urology. 2000 Jul;56(1):92– 5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090- 4295(00)00550-1

  25. Meng MV, Carroll PR. When is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary before radical prostatectomy? A decision analysis. J Urol. 2000 Oct;164(4):1235–40. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67147-9

  26. 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 Sep;178(3 Pt 1):864–70; discussion 870-871. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. juro.2007.05.048

  27. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 2002 Apr;167(4):1681–6. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65177-4

  28. Campbell SC, Klein EA, Levin HS, Piedmonte MR. Open pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: a reassessment. Urology. 1995 Sep;46(3):352–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0090-4295(99)80219-2

  29. 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 Jun;7(6):472–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ s1470-2045(06)70700-8

  30. 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 Dec 9;341(24):1781–8. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1056/nejm199912093412401




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com