ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2020
The ongoing dilemma in pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy: who should decide and in which patients?
Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2020. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a novel nomogram to identify the candidate to extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients who underwent mpMRI and target biopsy only.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Impacts on functional and oncological outcomes of Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy 10 years after the US Preventive Service Taskforce recommendations against PSA screening.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic lymph node dissection (pLND) is considered the most reliable method for the detection of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Current clinical guidelines recommend performing pLND in intermediate- and high-risk patients that are defined using different clinical nomograms and different cut-off values. Although the detection of lymph node metastatic disease can identify patients who could benefit from adjuvant therapies and potentially improve prostate cancer-related survival outcomes, so far there has been no level 1 evidence to support this survival benefit. Available retrospective data that suggest oncological benefits are subject to various forms of bias. Furthermore, pLND is not feasible or may be risky in some patient-related conditions, such as morbid obesity and previous history of intraabdominal surgery including organ transplants. In this review, we discuss the current controversies surrounding pLND during robotic-assisted prostatectomy in prostate cancer, specifically the pitfalls in interpretation of restricted evidence suggesting its oncological benefits, and examine the potential influence of patient- and surgeon-related factors that may determine the decision to perform pLND.
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.