ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2018
Lymph node-positive prostate cancer after robotic prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Significance of Radical Prostatectomy in Clinical Lymph Node Metastasis in Prostate Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Management of obturator nevre injury during pelvic lymph node dissection.Turkish journal of urology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimal management of node-positive prostate cancer patients after prostatectomy remains a challenge. We evaluated clinically localized patients who demonstrated node positivity and identified predictors for secondary treatment. From 2010 to 2015, clinically localized prostate cancer patients who underwent robot prostatectomy with extended lymphadenectomy and node-positive disease on pathologic analysis were identified. Clinical N1, M1 or salvage cases were excluded. Patients were stratified based on secondary treatments. Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine the time to biochemical and metastatic recurrence. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors for additional treatment. 145 patients (45 no additional therapy, 47 adjuvant, 53 salvage) had a median follow-up of 31.2 months. Salvage patients had higher median pre-operative prostate-specific antigen (10.8 vs. 9.7 vs. 8.2, p = 0.1), higher percentage of pathologic Gleason ≥8 (50.9 vs. 38.3% and 22.2%, p < 0.01), and higher median-positive nodes (3 vs. 1 and 1, p < 0.0001) compared to adjuvant and no treatment groups, respectively. Pathologic Gleason ≥8 (OR = 3.5, p = 0.007) and positive nodes ≥2 (OR = 3.3, p = 0.006) were associated with additional therapy. In the no treatment group, two-year estimated BCRFS was 74.3%. Two-year metastatic recurrence-free rates for no treatment, adjuvant and salvage groups were 100, 87.5, and 80.9%, respectively (p = 0.01). Observation is a viable alternative for low metastatic burden patients. In the largest series of node-positive patients from robotic prostatectomy and extended lymphadenectomy, those with pathologic Gleason ≥8 and positive lymph nodes ≥2 were more likely to receive additional treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28905289What OpenQuestion holds
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.