Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27364520›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2017

The rationale and the role of lymph node dissection in renal cell carcinoma.

Umberto Capitanio, Bradley C Leibovich

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07321197 (Template Lymph Node Dissection for Tumor Control in High-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT07321197 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Template Lymph Node Dissection for Tumor Control in High-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective, Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorTianjin Medical University Second HospitalRan2025 to 2033Enrolled220ConditionsRenal Cell Carcinoma (Kidney Cancer)ArmsTemplate Lymph Node Dissection, Selective Lymph Node Resection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Dissecting the role of lymphadenectomy in the management of renal cell carcinoma: past, present, and future.Kidney cancer journal : official journal of the Kidney Cancer Association · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Umberto CapitanioUnit of Urology, University Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. umbertocapitanio@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9225-1795
Bradley C LeibovichDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough the role of lymph node dissection (LND) is well defined in many urological settings, uncertainty regarding need for LND still exists for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The aim of the current review is to highlight the rationale for performing or omitting LND at the time of renal surgery.

methodsData were identified through a search of PubMed and Web of Science, including studies published in the last 20 years in core clinical journals. The review is based on evidence synthesis from a peer-review process of the two authors after a structured data search.

resultsNeither imaging, nor predictive tools or molecular/genetic markers accurately identify which patients may warrant a LND. In patients with clinical T1abN0 and absence of unfavorable clinical and pathological characteristics, LND does not appear to offer benefit in terms of staging and cancer control. Conversely, LND can be considered in selected cases (larger tumors, locally advanced diseases or when unfavorable pathological characteristics are likely, as high Fuhrman grade, sarcomatoid features or tumor necrosis) due to the non-negligible risk of associated nodal metastases and possible benefit in terms of cancer control.

conclusionsAlthough LND does not provide any benefit in the majority of RCC cases (mainly T1abN0M0 cases), it remains an important consideration in intermediate-/high-risk patients for staging purposes, given an increased risk of LNI, and for potential benefit in terms of cancer control. Additional data are urgently needed to improve the accuracy of nodal staging tools and to evaluate the potential role of salvage LND.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellHumansKidney NeoplasmsLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesNeoplasm StagingNephrectomyRisk AssessmentKidney cancerLymphadenectomyLymph node dissectionRenal cancerRenal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID27364520
OpenAlexW2472205011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.