Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32624288›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology2020

Long-term Outcomes of Salvage Lymph Node Dissection for Nodal Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: Not as Good as Previously Thought.

Carlo A Bravi, Nicola Fossati, Giorgio Gandaglia, Nazareno Suardi, Elio Mazzone, Daniele Robesti, Daniar Osmonov, Klaus-Peter Juenemann, Luca Boeri, R Jeffrey Karnes and 19 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. How to tailor the radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy in the modern era of molecular imaging, genomic testing, and technology development?Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. [Salvage lymphadenectomy for recurrent prostate cancer].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

29 authors at 15 institutions in 7 countries.

Carlo A BraviDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Nicola FossatiDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Giorgio GandagliaDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Nazareno SuardiDepartment of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Elio MazzoneDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Daniele RobestiDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Daniar OsmonovDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany.
Klaus-Peter JuenemannDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany.
Luca BoeriDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca Granda, Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
R Jeffrey KarnesDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Alexander KretschmerDepartment of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Alexander BuchnerDepartment of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Christian StiefDepartment of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Andreas HiesterDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Alessandro NiniDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany; Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Saarland University Medical Center, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
Peter AlbersDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Gaëtan DevosDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Steven JoniauDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Hendrik Van PoppelDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.
Axel HeidenreichDepartment of Urology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
David PfisterDepartment of Urology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Derya TilkiDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Markus GraefenDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Inderbir S GillUSC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alexander MottrieDepartment of Urology, OLV Ziekenhuis Aalst, Melle, Belgium.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Francesco MontorsiDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Alberto BrigantiDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: briganti.alberto@hsr.it.
IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITKU Leuven · BELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity of Cologne · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DEMayo Clinic in Arizona · USMcGill University Health Centre · CAOnze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital · BEOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITSechenov University · RUUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI MYLES G COCKBURN · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLong-term outcomes of patients treated with salvage lymph node dissection (sLND) for nodal recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) remain unknown.

objectiveTo investigate long-term oncological outcomes after sLND in a large multi-institutional series. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThe study included 189 patients who experienced prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise and nodal-only recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) and underwent sLND at 11 tertiary referral centers between 2002 and 2011. Lymph node recurrence was documented by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan using either OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome of the study was cancer-specific mortality (CSM). The secondary outcomes were overall mortality, clinical recurrence (CR), biochemical recurrence (BCR), and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free survival after sLND. The probability of freedom from each outcome was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Cox regression analysis was used to predict the risk of prostate CSM after accounting for several parameters, including the use of additional treatments after sLND. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At long term, 110 and 163 patients experienced CR and BCR, respectively, with CR-free and BCR-free survival at 10 yr of 31% and 11%, respectively. After sLND, a total of 145 patients received ADT, with a median time to ADT of 41 mo. At a median (interquartile range) follow-up for survivors of 87 (51, 104) mo, 48 patients died. Of them, 45 died from PCa. The probabilities of freedom from cancer-specific and all-cause death at 10 yr were 66% and 64%, respectively. Similar results were obtained in sensitivity analyses in patients with pelvic-only positive PET/CT scan, as well as after excluding men on ADT at PET/CT scan and patients with PSA level at sLND higher than the 75th percentile. At multivariable analyses, patients who had PSA response after sLND (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.45; p = 0.001), and those receiving ADT within 6 mo from sLND (HR: 0.51; p = 0.010) had lower risk of death from PCa.

conclusionsA third of men treated with sLND for PET-detected nodal recurrence of PCa died at long term, with PCa being the main cause of death. Salvage LND alone was associated with durable long-term outcomes in a minority of men who significantly benefited from additional treatments after surgery. Taken together, all these data argue against the use of metastasis-directed therapy alone for patients with node-only recurrent PCa. These men should instead be considered at high risk of systemic dissemination already at the time of sLND. PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed long-term outcomes of patients treated with salvage lymph node dissection (sLND) for node-recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). In contrast with prior evidence, we found that the majority of these men recurred after sLND and eventually died from PCa. A significant survival benefit associated with the administration of androgen deprivation therapy after sLND suggests that sLND should be considered part of a multimodal approach rather than an exclusive treatment strategy.

Indexed as

Lymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionProstatectomyAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPelvisSalvage TherapyTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeAndrogen deprivation therapyMetastasis-directed therapyNeoplasm recurrencePositron emission tomography scanProstate cancerSalvage lymph node dissection

Identifiers

PMID32624288
PMCPMC9084633
OpenAlexW3038750967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.