The impact of drainage pathways on the detection of nodal metastases in prostate cancer: a phase II randomized comparison of intratumoral vs intraprostatic tracer injection for sentinel node detection

Introduction Previous studies indicated that location and amount of detected sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in prostate cancer (PCa) are influenced where SLN-tracer is deposited within the prostate. To validate whether intratumoral (IT) tracer injection helps to increase identification of tumor-positiv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2022-04, Vol.49 (5), p.1743-1753
Hauptverfasser: Wit, Esther M. K., van Beurden, Florian, Kleinjan, Gijs H., Grivas, Nikolaos, de Korne, Clarize M., Buckle, Tessa, Donswijk, Maarten L., Bekers, Elise M., van Leeuwen, Fijs W. B., van der Poel, Henk G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction Previous studies indicated that location and amount of detected sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in prostate cancer (PCa) are influenced where SLN-tracer is deposited within the prostate. To validate whether intratumoral (IT) tracer injection helps to increase identification of tumor-positive lymph nodes (LNs) better than intraprostatic (IP) tracer injection, a prospective randomized phase II trial was performed. Methods PCa patients with a > 5% risk of lymphatic involvement were randomized between ultrasound-guided transrectal injection of indocyanine green-[ 99m Tc]Tc-nanocolloid in 2 depots of 1 mL in the tumor ( n  = 55, IT-group) or in 4 depots of 0.5 mL in the peripheral zone of the prostate ( n  = 58, IP-group). Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and SPECT/CT were used to define the location of the SLNs. SLNs were dissected using combination of radio- and fluorescence-guidance, followed by extended pelvic LN dissection and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Outcome measurements were number of tumor-bearing SNs, tumor-bearing LNs, removed nodes, number of patients with nodal metastases, and metastasis-free survival (MFS) of 4–7-year follow-up data. Results IT-injection did not result in significant difference of removed SLNs (5.0 vs 6.0, p  = 0.317) and histologically positive SLNs (28 vs 22, p  = 0.571). However, in IT-group, the SLN-positive nodes were 73.7% of total positive nodes compared to 37.3% in IP-group ( p  = 0.015). Moreover, significantly more node-positive patients were found in IT-group (42% vs 24%, p  = 0.045), which did not result in worse MFS. In two patients (3.6%) from whom the IT-tracer injection only partly covered intraprostatic tumor spread, nodal metastases in ePLND without tumor-positive SNs were yielded. Conclusions The percentage-positive SLNs found after IT-injection were significantly higher compared to IP-injection. Significantly more node-positive patients were found using IT-injection, which did not affect MFS. IT-injection failed to detect nodal metastases from non-index satellite lesions. Therefore, we suggest to combine IT- and IP-tracer injections in men with visible tumor on imaging.
ISSN:1619-7070
1619-7089
DOI:10.1007/s00259-021-05580-0