ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2018
[Lymph node management of cN0 penile cancer].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In penile cancer, lymph node metastasis is the main known prognostic factor affecting patients' survival. Early inguinal lymph node dissection or the resection of clinically occult lymph node metastases improves survival compared with removal when the metastases become clinically apparent. Micrometastatic lymph node involvement is undetectable by current imaging modalities. Nomograms based on clinical and histopathological tumor characteristics are unreliable in predicting lymph node involvement. Consequently, in penile cancer patients with clinically normal inguinal lymph nodes (cN0) and a tumor stage ≥pT1, G2 surgical lymph node exploration is recommended. Radical inguinal lymphadenectomy is no longer recommended because of its invasiveness and high complication rate. Modified lymphadenectomy and dynamic sentinel lymph node surgery allow the detection of lymph node-positive patients with sufficient certainty. Thereby, the sentinel lymph node approach offers the least invasiveness and high sensitivity. Extended inguinal lymphadenectomy is still recommended in the case of positive nodes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.