Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25773350›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2015

Lymph node staging in prostate cancer.

Sandeep Sankineni, Anna M Brown, Michele Fascelli, Yan Mee Law, Peter A Pinto, Peter L Choyke, Baris Turkbey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Associations between LncRNADiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Metastases in Prostate Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2019
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. European radiology · 2018
    Article
  18. The impact of [Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Functional nanoparticles for magnetic resonance imaging.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sandeep SankineniMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Building 10, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Anna M Brown
Michele Fascelli
Yan Mee Law
Peter A Pinto
Peter L Choyke
Baris Turkbey

Funding

Prostate Cancer ImagingZIABC010655 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2009 to 2025
$49.2M
Prostate SectionZIABC011081 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI PINTO, PETER · 2009 to 2025
$15.2M
Lymphatic ImagingZIABC010654 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2009 to 2020
$4.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA BC010655
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nodal staging is important in prostate cancer treatment. While surgical lymph node dissection is the classic method of determining whether lymph nodes harbor malignancy, this is a very invasive technique. Current noninvasive approaches to identifying malignant lymph nodes are limited. Conventional imaging methods rely on size and morphology of lymph nodes and have notoriously low sensitivity for detecting malignant nodes. New imaging techniques such as targeted positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and magnetic resonance lymphography (MRL) with iron oxide particles are promising for nodal staging of prostate cancer. In this review, the strengths and limitations of imaging techniques for lymph node staging of prostate cancer are discussed.

Indexed as

HumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMultimodal ImagingNeoplasm StagingProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25773350
PMCPMC6330104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.