ReviewFrontiers in surgery2018
The Role of Lymph Node Dissection in the Treatment of Bladder Cancer.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Therapeutic Role of Lymph Node Dissection in Variant Subtype Bladder Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
- Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection on survival outcomes in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Pelvic lymphadenectomy: Evaluating nodal stage migration and will rogers effect in bladder cancer.Urologic oncology · 2024Article
- Robotic Surgery for Bladder Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The View Outside of the Box: Reporting Outcomes Following Radical Cystectomy Using Pentafecta From a Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Immunological Status of Bladder Cancer Patients Based on Urine Leukocyte Composition at Radical Cystectomy.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- Imaging and Management of Bladder Cancer.Cancers · 2021Review
- The Adequacy of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy During Radical Cystectomy for Carcinoma Urinary Bladder: A Narrative Review of Literature.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Review
- Inguinal lymph node metastasis of bladder carcinoma after radical cystectomy: A case report and review of literature.International journal of surgery case reports · 2020Article
- Communication Of Cancer Cells And Lymphatic Vessels In Cancer: Focus On Bladder Cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2019Article
- Templates of Lymph Node Dissection for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Frontiers in surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lymph node dissection (LND; PLND: pelvic LND) is an essential component of radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer (BC). However, the optimal anatomical extent of LND and its potential therapeutic role are still controversial: as we will explain, the extent of LND dissection is a predictor of survival and local recurrence but what is an adequate extension is still unclear. Moreover, there is large uncertainty about the role of surgery in patients with clinically-positive nodes. In this review we will provide a synthesis of the available evidence on this highly debated topic. Overall, the studies presented in this work support the idea that extended lymphadenectomy could provide optimal diagnostic and possibly therapeutic results in cN- patients. In cN+ patients, post chemotherapy surgery may be considered especially in subjects who have a good response to CHT, although definitive evidence is still needed. Finally, the final results of randomized trials are eagerly awaited to draw definitive conclusions of the role of PLND in BC.
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.