Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/118982
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorClaps, Francescoen_US
dc.contributor.authorde Pablos-Rodríguez, Pedroen_US
dc.contributor.authorGómez-Ferrer, Álvaroen_US
dc.contributor.authorMascarós, Juan Manuelen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarenco, Joséen_US
dc.contributor.authorCollado Serra, Argimiroen_US
dc.contributor.authorCasanova Ramón-Borja, Juanen_US
dc.contributor.authorCalatrava Fons, Anaen_US
dc.contributor.authorTrombetta, Carloen_US
dc.contributor.authorRubio-Briones, Joseen_US
dc.contributor.authorRamírez-Backhaus, Miguelen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-20T16:39:00Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-20T16:39:00Z-
dc.date.issued2022en_US
dc.identifier.issn1078-1439en_US
dc.identifier.otherScopus-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10553/118982-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction and objectives: Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection (ePLND) remains the most accurate technique for the detection of occult lymph node metastases (LNMs) in prostate cancer (CaP) patients. Here we aim to examine whether free-Indocyanine Green (F-ICG) could accurately assess the pathological nodal (pN) status in CaP patients during real-time lymphangiography as a potential replacement for ePLND. Materials and methods: 219 consecutive patients undergoing F-ICG-guided PLND, ePLND and radical prostatectomy (RP) for clinical-localized CaPwere included in this prospective single-center study. The pathological outcomes of F-ICG-guided PLND were compared to confirmatory ePLND. Parameters of a binary diagnostic test for the proper classification of the pN status of patients (‘per-patient’ analysis) and for the probability of detecting all the metastatic LNs (‘per-node’ analysis) were calculated. Outcome measures were prevalence, accuracy (Acc), sensitivity (Se), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratio of a negative F-ICG-guided PLND test result [LR(−)]. Results: F-ICG-guided PLND successfully visualized LNs in all procedures with no adverse events. The overall per-patient F-ICG staging Acc was 97.7%, Se was 91.4%, with a NPV of 97.0%, and LR(−) of 8.6%. At the overall per-node level, 4,780 LNs were removed and 1,535 (32.1%) were fluorescent in vivo. F-ICG-guided PLND identified LNMs with a Se of 63.4%. Conclusions: This study confirms that F-ICG-guided lymphangiography correctly staged almost 98% of patients. The high per-patient NPV suggested that avoiding ePLND is safe for most patients when F-ICG stained nodes were pN0. Thus, more conservative approaches might minimise perioperative morbidity during LNMs diagnosis in selected patients.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigationsen_US
dc.sourceUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations[ISSN 1078-1439], v. 40, pp. 489.e19-489.e26 (Septiembre 2022)en_US
dc.subject32 Ciencias médicasen_US
dc.subject321316 Urologíaen_US
dc.subject320713 Oncologíaen_US
dc.subject.otherExtended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissectionen_US
dc.subject.otherFluorescenceen_US
dc.subject.otherIndocyanine Greenen_US
dc.subject.otherProstate Canceren_US
dc.subject.otherSentinel Lymph Node Biopsyen_US
dc.titleFree-indocyanine green-guided pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomyen_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/Articleen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.08.005en_US
dc.identifier.scopus85139060988-
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-2812-5553-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57216352399-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57222092060-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6505841134-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57201473127-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57206260381-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid7005263947-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6603249907-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid35268089800-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid7005479011-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid55893173400-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid14024715000-
dc.identifier.eissn1873-2496-
dc.description.lastpage489.e26en_US
dc.description.firstpage489.e19en_US
dc.relation.volume40en_US
dc.investigacionCiencias de la Saluden_US
dc.type2Artículoen_US
dc.description.numberofpages8en_US
dc.utils.revisionen_US
dc.date.coverdateSeptiembre 2022en_US
dc.identifier.ulpgcen_US
dc.contributor.buulpgcBU-MEDen_US
dc.description.sjr0,874
dc.description.jcr2,7
dc.description.sjrqQ1
dc.description.jcrqQ2
dc.description.scieSCIE
dc.description.miaricds11,0
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.fulltextCon texto completo-
Appears in Collections:Artículos
Adobe PDF (706,08 kB)
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Share



Export metadata



Items in accedaCRIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.