Suboptimal use of pelvic lymph node dissection: Differences in guideline adherence between robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy

Authors

  • Jonas Schiffmann Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
  • Alessandro Larcher
  • Maxine Sun
  • Zhe Tian
  • Jérémie Berdugo
  • Ion Leva
  • Hugues Widmer
  • Jean-Baptiste Lattouf
  • Kevin C. Zorn
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
  • Francesco Montorsi
  • Markus Graefen
  • Fred Saad
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3563

Abstract

Introduction: Our aim was to assess adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of either robot-assisted (RARP) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Methods: We relied on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database and focused on localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients who were treated with either RARP or ORP between October 2008 and December 2009. Categorical and multivariable logistic regression analyses targeted two endpoints: 1) probability of guideline-recommended PLND; and 2) probability of no PLND, when not guideline-recommended.

Results: Among 5268 PCa patients, adherence to NCCN PLND guideline was 56.9% during RARP and 76.5% during ORP (odds ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3‒0.6). AUA PLND guideline adherence was 68.1% during RARP and 82.4% during ORP (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5‒0.9). When PLND was not recommended, it was more frequently performed during ORP according to either NCCN (OR 3.7, 95% CI 3.5‒3.9) or AUA (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.6‒2.8). According to the NCCN guideline, at recommended PLND in ORP patients, 6.3% harboured lymph node invasion (LNI) (number needed to treat [NNT] 16) vs. 3.2% at RARP (NNT 31). According to the AUA guideline, at recommended PLND in ORP patients, 12.3% harboured LNI (NNT 8) vs. 5.1% RARP (NNT 19).

Conclusions: Adherence to NCCN and AUA PLND guidelines was lower during RARP than during ORP when PLND was recommended. The rate of non-recommended PLND was also higher during ORP than during RARP. Technical considerations may be at play.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2016-08-16

How to Cite

Schiffmann, J., Larcher, A., Sun, M., Tian, Z., Berdugo, J., Leva, I., Widmer, H., Lattouf, J.-B., Zorn, K. C., Shariat, S. F., Montorsi, F., Graefen, M., Saad, F., & Karakiewicz, P. I. (2016). Suboptimal use of pelvic lymph node dissection: Differences in guideline adherence between robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 10(7-8), 269–76. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3563

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 7-8 (2016): CUAJ August

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.