Fiche publication
Date publication
juin 2012
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Pr ROY Catherine
Tous les auteurs :
Larre S, Quintens H, Houede N, Comperat E, Roy C, Pignot G, Roupret M, Neuzillet Y, Wallerand H, Soulie M, Pfister C
Lien Pubmed
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy or nephroureterectomy confers improved prognosis and eventually therapeutic advantage. The aim of this update is to clarify the anatomical limits of the lymph node dissection, imaging related techniques, possible difficulties related to pathological analysis, its prognostic value and adjuvant treatments. METHOD: A literature review was performed using PubMed database with a combination of the following keywords: "urothelial carcinoma", "lymph node excision", "imaging", "pathology analysis", "prognosis", "chemotherapy" and "radiotherapy". RESULTS: Regarding bladder tumours, extended lymph node dissection is usually performed up to the division of the iliac vessels and the crossing of the ureters. The CT scan is the recommended imaging technique for lymph node staging but its sensitivity is low. Pathological examination should include perivesicle lymph nodes analysis and report the number of normal and metastatic lymph nodes separately. The prognosis is correlated to the total number of lymph nodes removed and to the extent of the excision. The lymph node density (number of metastatic nodes/normal nodes) is the most important prognosis factor. Adjuvant chemotherapy has not demonstrated a clear advantage. Its most efficient modality is a combination including cisplatin. For upper urinary tract tumours, lymph node dissection may have an impact on survival but definitive conclusion is limited by the lack of surgical technique and indications standardisation. CONCLUSION: Extended lymph node dissection improves survival of bladder cancer and prognosis assessment that could eventually be used to stratify patient requiring adjuvant treatment (level of evidence 3). Improvement on survival was also suggested for upper urinary tract tumors (level of evidence 4).
Référence
Prog Urol. 2012 Jun;22(7):380-7
