Objective: The goal of this study was to show lymphatic drainage and to verify the validity of lymphoscintigraphy for the identification of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) in prostate cancer. Furthermore, the question is to be raised whether the standardized pelvic lymphadenectomy is a sufficient means for also detecting solitary micrometastases. Patients and Methods: Eleven patients with prostate cancer received a sonographically controlled, transrectal administration of a technetium-99m colloid injected directly into the prostate 1 day prior to pelvic lymphadenectomy. 20 min later the dynamic lymphoscintigraphy was carried out. During surgery, the SLNs were identified by using a gamma probe. The standard pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed after removal of the SLN. Results: In 3 of 4 patients with micrometastasis the spread of the tumor could exclusively be found in those nodes which had been identified as SLNs by means of scintigraphy by combining preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and intraoperative gamma probe detection. In 2 cases, the pathologically proved SLNs were situated at the anteromedial region of the internal iliac artery, thus being located outside of the standard pelvic lymphadenectomy area. In 1 patient, however, the micrometastasis was found beyond those nodes which had been identified as SLN intraoperatively. Conclusions: In the future, we expect the restriction of pelvic staging lymphadenectomy to scintigraphically proved SLN. The perioperative morbidity may be reduced by increasing the sensitivity of the detection of micrometastases. Our data confirm earlier perceptions, according to which even modified standardized pelvic lymphadenectomy is considered insufficient in terms of the detection of micrometastases.

Keywords:
Prostatic neoplasms, Lymph node excision, Radionuclide imaging, Lymph nodes, Prostatectomy
1.
Cabanas RM: An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer 1977;39:456–466.
2.
Morton DL, Wen DR, Cochran AJ: Management of early stage melanoma by intraoperative lymphatic mapping and selective lymphadenectomy. An alternative to routine elective lymphadenectomy or ‘watch and wait’. Surg Oncol Clin North Am 1990;1:247–259.
3.
Perinetti EP, Crane DB, Catalona WJ: Unreliability of sentinel lymph node biopsy for staging penile carcinoma. J Urol 1980;124:734–735.
4.
Wespes E, Simon J, Schulman CC: Cabanas approach: Is sentinel node biopsy reliable for staging penile carcinoma? Urology 1986;28:278–381.
5.
Pettaway CA, Pisters LL, Dinney CPN, Jularbal FE, Swanson DA, von Eschenbach AC, Ayala A: Sentinel lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: The M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience. J Urol 1995;154:1999–2003.
6.
McDowell GC, Johnson JW, Tenney DM, Johnson DE: Pelvic lymphadenectomy for staging clinically localized prostate cancer: Indications, complications, and results in 217 cases. Urology 1990;35:476–482.
7.
Golimbu M, Morales P, Al-Askari S, Brown J: Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostatic cancer. J Urol 1979;121:617–620.
8.
Schuessler WW, Pharand D, Vancaille ThG: Laparoscopic standard pelvic node dissection for carcinoma of the prostate: Is it accurate? J Urol 1993;150:898–901.
9.
Weingärtner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A, Gerharz EW, Vöge D, Riedmiller H: Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: Results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol 1996;156:1969–1971.
10.
Winfield HN, Donovan JF, See WA, Loening SA, Williams RD: Urological laparoscopic surgery. J Urol 1991;146:941–948.
11.
Harzmann R, Weckermann D, Hirnle P, Haefelinger G, Schweinsberg F: Chromolymphography as a means for selective lymphadenectomy. Akt Urol 1990;21(suppl):29–32.
12.
Gardiner RA, Fitzpatrick JM, Constable AR, Crawage RW, O’Donoghue EPN, Wickham JEA: Improved techniques in radionuclide imaging of prostatic lymph nodes. Br J Urol 1979;51:561–564.
13.
Zuckier LS, Finkelstein M, Kreutzer ER, Stone PL, Freed SZ, Bard RH, Blaufox MD, Freeman LM: Technetium-99m antimony sulphide colloid lymphoscintigraphy of the prostate by direct transrectal injection. Nucl Med Commun 1990;11:589–596.
14.
Bachter D, Balda BR, Vogt H, Büchels H: Primary therapy of malignant melanomas: Sentinel lymphadenectomy. Int J Dermatol 1998;37:278–282.
15.
Morton DL, Wen DR, Foshag LJ, Essner R, Cochran A: Intraoperative lymphatic mapping and selective cervical lymphadenectomy for early stage melanomas of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1751–1756.
16.
Krag DN, Weaver DL, Alex JC, Fairbank JT: Surgical resection and radiolocalization of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer using a gamma probe. Surg Oncol 1993;2:335–340.
17.
Helpap B, Böcking A, Dhom G, Faul P, Kastendieck H, Leistenschneider W, Müller HA: Klassifikation, histologisches und zytologisches Grading sowie Regressionsgrading des Prostatakarzinoms. Pathologe 1985;6:3–7.
18.
Huland H: Welchen Stellenwert hat die radikale Prostatektomie beim lymphknotenpositiven Prostatakarzinom? Urologe A 1998;37:138–140.
19.
Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF: Does radical prostatectomy in the presence of positive pelvic lymph nodes enhance survival? World J Urol 1994;12:308–312.
20.
Aus G, Hugosson J, Norlen L: Need for hospital care and palliative treatment for prostate cancer treated with noncurative intent. J Urol 1995;154:466–469.
© 1999 S. Karger AG, Basel
1999
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.