ReviewFrontiers in oncology2019
The Role of Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection in Clinically Node Positive Patients.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- CanRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Examining the association between real-world extended vs. standard pelvic lymph node dissection and early and late oncologic outcomes in men undergoing radical prostatectomy.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Article
- Current status and therapeutic value of extended pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.Prostate international · 2024Review
- Ultrasensitive PSA: rethinking post-surgical management for node positive prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Clinical Significance of Radical Prostatectomy in Clinical Lymph Node Metastasis in Prostate Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- PEARLS - A multicentre phase II/III trial of extended field radiotherapy for androgen sensitive prostate cancer patients with PSMA-avid pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph nodes at presentation.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2022Article
- A narrative review of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
- Pelvic lymph node dissection in high-risk prostate cancer.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients diagnosed with clinically node-positive prostate cancer represent a population that has historically been thought to harbor systemic disease. Increasing evidence supports the role of local therapies in advanced disease, but few studies have focused on this particular population. In this review we discuss the limited role for conventional cross sectional imaging for accurate nodal staging and how molecular imaging, although early results are promising, is still far from widespread clinical utilization. To date, evidence regarding the role of radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in clinically node-positive disease comes from retrospective studies; overall surgery appears to be a reasonable option in selected patients, with improved oncological outcomes that could be attributed to both to its potential curative role in disease localized to the pelvis and to the improved staging to help guide subsequent multimodal treatment. The role of surgery in clinically node-positive disease needs higher-level evidence but meanwhile, radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph-node dissection can be offered as a part of a multimodality approach with the patient.
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.