Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleBRIEF COMMUNICATION

The Diagnostic Value of the Sentinel Node Procedure to Detect Occult Lymph Node Metastases in PSMA PET/CT Node–Negative Prostate Cancer Patients

Jan J. Duin, Hilda A. de Barros, Maarten L. Donswijk, Eva E. Schaake, Tim M. van der Sluis, Esther M.K. Wit, Fijs W.B. van Leeuwen, Pim J. van Leeuwen and Henk G. van der Poel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine October 2023, 64 (10) 1563-1566; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.123.265556
Jan J. Duin
1Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
2Prostate Cancer Network The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hilda A. de Barros
1Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
2Prostate Cancer Network The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maarten L. Donswijk
3Department of Nuclear Medicine, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eva E. Schaake
4Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tim M. van der Sluis
2Prostate Cancer Network The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
5Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Esther M.K. Wit
1Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
2Prostate Cancer Network The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fijs W.B. van Leeuwen
1Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
6Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pim J. van Leeuwen
1Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
2Prostate Cancer Network The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henk G. van der Poel
1Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
2Prostate Cancer Network The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
5Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Visual Abstract

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Abstract

Our objective was to assess the diagnostic value of the sentinel node (SN) procedure for lymph node staging in primary intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients with node-negative results on prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT (miN0). Methods: From 2016 to 2022, 154 patients with primary, miN0 PCa were retrospectively included. All patients had a Briganti nomogram–assessed nodal risk of more than 5% and underwent a robot-assisted SN procedure for nodal staging. The prevalence of nodal metastases at histopathology and the occurrence of surgical complications according to the Clavien–Dindo classification were evaluated. Results: The SN procedure yielded 84 (14%) tumor-positive lymph nodes with a median metastasis size of 3 mm (interquartile range, 1–4 mm). In total, 55 patients (36%) were reclassified as pN1. A complication of Clavien–Dindo grade 3 or higher occured in 1 patient (0.6%). Conclusion: The SN procedure classified 36% of patients with miN0 prostate cancer with an elevated risk of nodal metastases as pN1.

  • sentinel node
  • lymph node metastases
  • prostate cancer
  • PSMA PET

The presence of lymph node (LN) metastases has a great impact on the prognosis and management of prostate cancer (PCa) (1). Therefore, nodal sampling is recommended for primary PCa patients with a nomogram-assessed risk of LN metastases of more than 5% undergoing radical prostatectomy (2). The gold standard for LN staging in PCa is an extended pelvic LN dissection (ePLND) (2). As this procedure is associated with morbidity (3), alternative options are being explored. The sentinel node (SN) procedure is a procedure in which the first draining LNs are located, removed, and histopathologically assessed for metastases. By yielding a similar diagnostic accuracy and extending nodal detection to aberrant locations, the SN procedure has proven to be a less invasive alternative to ePLND (4,5) but is still considered experimental because of a lack of high-quality evidence supporting its oncologic efficacy (2).

Most studies assessing the diagnostic value of the SN procedure in PCa nodal staging have been performed on patients staged with conventional imaging (4,6). Due to its superior accuracy in detecting macrometastases, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT has now set the new standard in noninvasive PCa staging (7). An intrinsic limitation of this modality is its inability to accurately detect metastases smaller than 3 mm (8,9). Relying on PSMA-based target identification is therefore prone to missing of micrometastases (10). Thus, patients with node-negative PSMA PET/CT (miN0) may still benefit from an SN procedure.

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of LN metastases at final histopathologic examination in miN0 intermediate- and high-risk PCa patients undergoing SN procedures. The secondary outcome was 90-d Clavien–Dindo surgical complications after the SN procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study was conducted at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The institutional review board (IRBdm21-216) approved this retrospective study, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Patients were included if they had biopsy-proven PCa, a Briganti 2012 nomogram–assessed risk of nodal invasion of more than 5% (11), and no evidence of metastases on preoperative staging PSMA PET/CT and underwent the SN procedure before radiotherapy between 2016 and 2022. Patients were excluded if the primary tumor was not visible on PSMA PET/CT. As all patients opted for primary radiotherapy, none received ePLND.

PSMA PET/CT imaging was performed either at our hospital or at the referring hospital. At our center, PET/CT imaging was performed as previously described (12). All PSMA PET/CT scans were reviewed by an experienced nuclear medicine physician in line with PROMISE (13) and discussed in multidisciplinary meetings.

SN procedures were performed as described previously (6), with injection of the hybrid tracer indocyanine green–99mTc-nanocolloid (14) transrectally in 4 quadrants of the prostate under ultrasound guidance. Subsequently, lymphoscintigrams (15 min and 2 h after injection) and SPECT/low-dose CT (SPECT/CT) were performed (Figs. 1A and 1B). Experienced urologists performed robot-assisted surgery using the da Vinci Si Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc.). Intraoperatively, SNs were localized using a laparoscopic γ-probe (Europrobe 2; Eurorad) and fluorescence imaging with the robot-integrated Firefly camera (Intuitive Surgical; Figs. 1C–1D).

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

SPECT (A), SPECT/CT (B), intraoperative white light (C), and fluorescence imaging (D) of iliac SN, which harbored 3-mm metastasis on histopathology (pN1).

All specimens were fixed in formalin, embedded in paraffin, sectioned at 2 mm, cut at 3 planes (150-μm intervals), stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and histopathologically examined for metastatic deposits. The CAM5.2 monoclonal antibody was used for immunohistochemical evaluation of PSMA expression in LN metastases measuring at least 5 mm.

Median and interquartile range were reported for continuous variables, and frequency and percentage were reported for categoric variables. Unpaired t tests or Mann–Whitney U nonparametric tests was used to compare continuous variables between pN0 and pN1 patients. χ2 or Fisher exact tests was used to compare discrete variables. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS statistics, version 27.0 (IBM Corp).

RESULTS

In total, 154 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (Fig. 2; Table 1). Preoperative SPECT/CT highlighted 445 SNs (median, 3 SNs per patient [interquartile range, 2–4]). Patients with unilateral (n = 32) or bilateral (n = 12) nonvisualization on SPECT/CT underwent ipsilateral (n = 11) or bilateral (n = 11) ePLND up to the ureter-vessel crossing, indocyanine green–guided node dissection (n = 20), or a unilateral SN procedure (n = 2). In patients with multiple SNs on SPECT/CT, SNs located in difficult-to-reach anatomic locations (e.g., pararectal or paraaortic) were left in situ (n = 42).

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) diagram.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Patient and Diagnostic Characteristics

In total, 618 LNs were surgically excised (403 SNs and 215 non-SNs), of which 84 (14%) harbored metastases (75 SNs and 9 non-SNs; median metastasis size, 3 mm [Fig. 3]). Nodal metastases were located in the obturator fossa (52%; 44/84), external iliac (39%; 33/84), internal iliac (4%; 3/84), paravesical (2%; 2/84), presacral (1%; 1/84), and pararectal (1%; 1/84) regions. SNs were the only tumor-bearing nodes in 50 (91%) patients.

FIGURE 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3.

LN metastasis size distribution.

In total, 55 patients (36%) were upstaged to pN1 on the basis of the outcome of the SN procedure. Sixteen metastases were at least 5 mm, and all showed PSMA expression immunohistochemically.

Only 1 (0.6%) patient had a high-grade complication (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3; Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

90-D Complications After SN Procedure

DISCUSSION

Using the SN procedure in PCa patients with increased nodal risk and miN0 disease on PSMA PET/CT resulted in upstaging of 55 (36%) patients to pN1, which may alter treatment recommendations. Our institute adjusts the radiation target volume for primary PCa patients according to the histologic outcome of the SN procedure. pN0 patients receive prostate-only radiotherapy, and pN1 patients receive additional pelvic radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy intensification. The oncologic benefit of such SN-based radiotherapy field adjustment (15) may also apply to miN0 patients. We believe the high-grade complication rate of 0.6% of the SN procedure justifies its use for nodal staging and subsequent treatment allocation.

The diagnostic value of the SN procedure in miN0 PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy was previously evaluated (12). The SN procedure detected nodal metastases in 6 (19%) miN0 patients (median metastasis size, 2.0 mm; interquartile range, 1.0–3.0 mm). Building on these results, we demonstrate the diagnostic value of the SN procedure in an expanded cohort of miN0 PCa patients opting for primary radiotherapy.

SN procedures provide a means of mapping the most likely tumor lymphatic drainage, thus allowing detection of metastases and micrometastases that are not yet reached by the vascular supply and might be missed by PSMA targeting (10). In our study, 16 metastases measuring at least 5 mm were missed by PSMA PET/CT. Nearly one third of these positive nodes consisted of multiple micrometastases on histopathology; therefore, although the cross-sectional diameter of the metastasis may be more than 5 mm, the total volume may be too small to be detected by PSMA PET/CT. The median time between PSMA PET/CT and the SN procedure was not significantly different in patients with a metastasis of at least 5 mm and those with a metastasis of less than 5 mm. Therefore, tumor progression is unlikely to explain why macrometastases were missed.

Several limitations of this study are noteworthy. First, different scanning protocols and different PSMA-targeting tracers may have influenced interpretation of PET/CT scans. Second, nodal metastases smaller than 5 mm were not reassessed for PSMA expression. Third, since no ePLND was performed after the SN procedure, we do not know the rate of false-negative SN biopsies. Lastly, oncologic outcomes cannot yet be accurately assessed because many patients received 3 y of androgen deprivation therapy and the current median follow-up is 2 y.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that the SN procedure detects nodal metastases in more than one third of patients with node-negative PSMA PET/CT. Smaller nodal metastases detected by examination of SNs are readily missed by PSMA PET/CT. Further studies are needed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of SN-dependent PCa treatment in a prospective setting.

DISCLOSURE

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

KEY POINTS

QUESTION: Can SN biopsy improve nodal staging in PSMA PET/CT node-negative PCa patients with an increased risk of nodal invasion?

PERTINENT FINDINGS: SN biopsy upstaged 55 (36%) primary PSMA PET/CT node-negative PCa patients to pN1.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Implementation of SN biopsy in primary PCa improves the detection of metastatic nodes, providing valuable information for further treatment guidance.

Footnotes

  • Published online Jul. 6, 2023.

  • © 2023 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Touijer KA,
    2. Mazzola CR,
    3. Sjoberg DD,
    4. Scardino PT,
    5. Eastham JA
    . Long-term outcomes of patients with lymph node metastasis treated with radical prostatectomy without adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. Eur Urol. 2014;65:20–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Mottet N,
    2. van den Bergh RCN,
    3. Briers E,
    4. et al
    . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79:243–262.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Cacciamani GE,
    2. Maas M,
    3. Nassiri N,
    4. et al
    . Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection and its extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4:134–149.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Wit EMK,
    2. Acar C,
    3. Grivas N,
    4. et al
    . Sentinel node procedure in prostate cancer: a systematic review to assess diagnostic accuracy. Eur Urol. 2017;71:596–605.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Acar C,
    2. Kleinjan GH,
    3. van den Berg NS,
    4. Wit EM,
    5. van Leeuwen FW,
    6. van der Poel HG
    . Advances in sentinel node dissection in prostate cancer from a technical perspective. Int J Urol. 2015;22:898–909.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Grivas N,
    2. Wit E,
    3. Pos F,
    4. et al
    . Sentinel lymph node dissection to select clinically node-negative prostate cancer patients for pelvic radiation therapy: effect on biochemical recurrence and systemic progression. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97:347–354.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hofman MS,
    2. Lawrentschuk N,
    3. Francis RJ,
    4. et al
    . Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020;395:1208–1216.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Jansen BHE,
    2. Bodar YJL,
    3. Zwezerijnen GJC,
    4. et al
    . Pelvic lymph-node staging with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT prior to extended pelvic lymph-node dissection in primary prostate cancer: the SALT trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:509–520.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Sprute K,
    2. Kramer V,
    3. Koerber SA,
    4. et al
    . Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT imaging for lymph node staging of prostate carcinoma in primary and biochemical recurrence. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:208–213.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. van Leeuwen FWB,
    2. Winter A,
    3. van Der Poel HG,
    4. et al
    . Technologies for image-guided surgery for managing lymphatic metastases in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2019;16:159–171.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Briganti A,
    2. Larcher A,
    3. Abdollah F,
    4. et al
    . Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61:480–487.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hinsenveld FJ,
    2. Wit EMK,
    3. van Leeuwen PJ,
    4. et al
    . Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT combined with sentinel node biopsy for primary lymph node staging in prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:540–545.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Eiber M,
    2. Herrmann K,
    3. Calais J,
    4. et al
    . Prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE): proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:469–478.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. KleinJan GH,
    2. van den Berg NS,
    3. Brouwer OR,
    4. et al
    . Optimisation of fluorescence guidance during robot-assisted laparoscopic sentinel node biopsy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;66:991–998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. de Barros HA,
    2. Duin JJ,
    3. Mulder D,
    4. et al
    . Sentinel node procedure to select clinically localized prostate cancer patients with occult nodal metastases for whole pelvis radiotherapy. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;49:80–89.
    OpenUrl
  • Received for publication February 6, 2023.
  • Revision received May 31, 2023.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 64 (10)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 64, Issue 10
October 1, 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Diagnostic Value of the Sentinel Node Procedure to Detect Occult Lymph Node Metastases in PSMA PET/CT Node–Negative Prostate Cancer Patients
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
The Diagnostic Value of the Sentinel Node Procedure to Detect Occult Lymph Node Metastases in PSMA PET/CT Node–Negative Prostate Cancer Patients
Jan J. Duin, Hilda A. de Barros, Maarten L. Donswijk, Eva E. Schaake, Tim M. van der Sluis, Esther M.K. Wit, Fijs W.B. van Leeuwen, Pim J. van Leeuwen, Henk G. van der Poel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Oct 2023, 64 (10) 1563-1566; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.265556

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Diagnostic Value of the Sentinel Node Procedure to Detect Occult Lymph Node Metastases in PSMA PET/CT Node–Negative Prostate Cancer Patients
Jan J. Duin, Hilda A. de Barros, Maarten L. Donswijk, Eva E. Schaake, Tim M. van der Sluis, Esther M.K. Wit, Fijs W.B. van Leeuwen, Pim J. van Leeuwen, Henk G. van der Poel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Oct 2023, 64 (10) 1563-1566; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.265556
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Reply: Considerations Surrounding the Sentinel Lymph Node in Prostate Cancer and Unanswered Questions
  • Considerations Surrounding the Sentinel Lymph Node in Prostate Cancer and Unanswered Questions
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Measuring Total Metabolic Tumor Volume from 18F-FDG PET: A Reality Check
  • Bioanalytic Hybrid System Merging 3-Dimensional Cell Culture and Chromatographic Precision for Unprecedented Preclinical Insights in Molecular Imaging
  • Radiances of Cerenkov-Emitting Radionuclides on the In Vivo Imaging System
Show more BRIEF COMMUNICATION

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • sentinel node
  • lymph node metastases
  • prostate cancer
  • PSMA PET
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire