Cargando…

Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy

Unlike urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, there is no guideline-based consensus on whether a lymph node dissection (LND) should be performed at the time of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Variable lymphatic drainage based on primary tumor location, lac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McIntosh, Andrew G., Umbreit, Eric C., Wood, Christopher G., Matin, Surena F., Karam, Jose A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34159106
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.11.34
_version_ 1783704835968729088
author McIntosh, Andrew G.
Umbreit, Eric C.
Wood, Christopher G.
Matin, Surena F.
Karam, Jose A.
author_facet McIntosh, Andrew G.
Umbreit, Eric C.
Wood, Christopher G.
Matin, Surena F.
Karam, Jose A.
author_sort McIntosh, Andrew G.
collection PubMed
description Unlike urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, there is no guideline-based consensus on whether a lymph node dissection (LND) should be performed at the time of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Variable lymphatic drainage based on primary tumor location, lack of prospective trials, and difficulties in developing a risk-adapted approach to LND for UTUC are all challenges to the development of an established approach. The UTUC literature consists of an evidence pool that has historically been limited to single-institution series with heterogenous inclusion criteria for LND and variable LND templates. Areas of controversy exist regarding migration to the great vessel LN beds for mid and distal tumors. A lack of template standardization limits the interpretation of studies relative to one another and a lack of uniformity in reporting templates may lead to inaccuracies in the estimation of lymph node metastasis landing sites. Most clinicians agree that there is a staging benefit to LND for UTUC. Although the data is somewhat heterogenous, it demonstrates a prognostic and staging benefit to LND in higher stages of UTUC. Unlike the staging benefits provided by LND for UTUC, the therapeutic benefits are not as clearly established. Several studies have evaluated differences in cancer-specific survival (CSS) and demonstrated LND to be an independent predictor of CSS when compared to patients not undergoing LND. However, this finding is not consistent across all studies and the literature is again limited by inclusion heterogeneity and inconsistent or lack or template-based resections. LND for UTUC at the time of RNU is a safe and feasible procedure that seems to especially benefit patients with muscle-invasive or locally advanced disease. Prospective, randomized studies with strict inclusion criteria and defined anatomic templates are needed to definitely characterize the role of LND for UTUC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8185683
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81856832021-06-21 Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy McIntosh, Andrew G. Umbreit, Eric C. Wood, Christopher G. Matin, Surena F. Karam, Jose A. Transl Androl Urol Review Article on Controversies in Minimally Invasive Urologic Oncology Unlike urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, there is no guideline-based consensus on whether a lymph node dissection (LND) should be performed at the time of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Variable lymphatic drainage based on primary tumor location, lack of prospective trials, and difficulties in developing a risk-adapted approach to LND for UTUC are all challenges to the development of an established approach. The UTUC literature consists of an evidence pool that has historically been limited to single-institution series with heterogenous inclusion criteria for LND and variable LND templates. Areas of controversy exist regarding migration to the great vessel LN beds for mid and distal tumors. A lack of template standardization limits the interpretation of studies relative to one another and a lack of uniformity in reporting templates may lead to inaccuracies in the estimation of lymph node metastasis landing sites. Most clinicians agree that there is a staging benefit to LND for UTUC. Although the data is somewhat heterogenous, it demonstrates a prognostic and staging benefit to LND in higher stages of UTUC. Unlike the staging benefits provided by LND for UTUC, the therapeutic benefits are not as clearly established. Several studies have evaluated differences in cancer-specific survival (CSS) and demonstrated LND to be an independent predictor of CSS when compared to patients not undergoing LND. However, this finding is not consistent across all studies and the literature is again limited by inclusion heterogeneity and inconsistent or lack or template-based resections. LND for UTUC at the time of RNU is a safe and feasible procedure that seems to especially benefit patients with muscle-invasive or locally advanced disease. Prospective, randomized studies with strict inclusion criteria and defined anatomic templates are needed to definitely characterize the role of LND for UTUC. AME Publishing Company 2021-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8185683/ /pubmed/34159106 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.11.34 Text en 2021 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article on Controversies in Minimally Invasive Urologic Oncology
McIntosh, Andrew G.
Umbreit, Eric C.
Wood, Christopher G.
Matin, Surena F.
Karam, Jose A.
Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy
title Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy
title_full Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy
title_fullStr Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy
title_full_unstemmed Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy
title_short Role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy
title_sort role of lymph node dissection at the time of open or minimally invasive nephroureterectomy
topic Review Article on Controversies in Minimally Invasive Urologic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34159106
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.11.34
work_keys_str_mv AT mcintoshandrewg roleoflymphnodedissectionatthetimeofopenorminimallyinvasivenephroureterectomy
AT umbreitericc roleoflymphnodedissectionatthetimeofopenorminimallyinvasivenephroureterectomy
AT woodchristopherg roleoflymphnodedissectionatthetimeofopenorminimallyinvasivenephroureterectomy
AT matinsurenaf roleoflymphnodedissectionatthetimeofopenorminimallyinvasivenephroureterectomy
AT karamjosea roleoflymphnodedissectionatthetimeofopenorminimallyinvasivenephroureterectomy