Current Urology (Dec 2022)

Differences in rates of pelvic lymph node dissection in National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable, unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer across United States SEER registries

  • Rocco Simone Flammia,
  • Benedikt Hoeh,
  • Francesco Chierigo,
  • Lukas Hohenhorst,
  • Gabriele Sorce,
  • Zhen Tian,
  • Costantino Leonardo,
  • Markus Graefen,
  • Carlo Terrone,
  • Fred Saad,
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat,
  • Alberto Briganti,
  • Francesco Montorsi,
  • Felix K. H. Chun,
  • Michele Gallucci,
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/CU9.0000000000000132
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 4
pp. 191 – 196

Abstract

Read online

Abstract. Background. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in NCCN high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We tested for PLND nonadherence (no-PLND) rates within the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (2010–2015). Materials and methods. We identified all radical prostatectomy patients who fulfilled the NCCN PLND guideline criteria (n = 23,495). Nonadherence rates to PLND were tabulated and further stratified according to NCCN risk subgroups, race/ethnicity, geographic distribution, and year of diagnosis. Results. Overall, the no-PLND rate was 26%; it was 41%, 25%, and 11% in the NCCN intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, and high-risk prostate cancer patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Over time, the no-PLND rates declined in the overall cohort and within each NCCN risk subgroup. Georgia exhibited the highest no-PLND rate (49%), whereas New Jersey exhibited the lowest (15%). Finally, no-PLND race/ethnicity differences were recorded only in the NCCN intermediate unfavorable subgroup, where Asians exhibited the lowest no-PLND rate (20%) versus African Americans (27%) versus Whites (26%) versus Hispanic-Latinos (25%). Conclusions. The lowest no-PLND rates were recorded in the NCCN high-risk patients followed by NCCN intermediate unfavorable and favorable risk in that order. Our findings suggest that unexpectedly elevated differences in no-PLND rates warrant further examination. In all the NCCN risk subgroups, the no-PLND rates decreased over time.