Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33814858›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of surgical oncology2021

Modified Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Groin-Negative Patients of Penile Cancer: Our Experience.

R B Nerli, Manas Sharma, Priyeshkumar Patel, Shridhar C Ghagane, Shashank D Patil, Pulkit Gupta, Murigendra B Hiremath, Neeraj S Dixit

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

R B NerliDepartment of Urology, JN Medical College, KLE Academy of Higher Education & Research, JNMC Campus, Belagavi, Karnataka 590010 India.
Manas SharmaDepartment of Urology, JN Medical College, KLE Academy of Higher Education & Research, JNMC Campus, Belagavi, Karnataka 590010 India.
Priyeshkumar PatelDepartment of Urology, JN Medical College, KLE Academy of Higher Education & Research, JNMC Campus, Belagavi, Karnataka 590010 India.
Shridhar C GhaganeDepartment of Urology, KLES Kidney Foundation, KLES Dr. Prabhakar Kore Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi, 590010 India.
Shashank D PatilDepartment of Urology, JN Medical College, KLE Academy of Higher Education & Research, JNMC Campus, Belagavi, Karnataka 590010 India.
Pulkit GuptaDepartment of Urology, JN Medical College, KLE Academy of Higher Education & Research, JNMC Campus, Belagavi, Karnataka 590010 India.
Murigendra B HiremathDepartment of Biotechnology and Microbiology, Karnatak University, Dharwad, Karnataka India.
Neeraj S DixitDepartment of Urology, KLES Kidney Foundation, KLES Dr. Prabhakar Kore Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi, 590010 India.
KLE University · INKLE Society Hospital · INKarnatak University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer of the penis is an important health problem in India, causing significant morbidity. Involvement of locoregional lymph nodes is the most significant prognostic factor for patients with penile cancer. In this study, we reviewed clinical data of all patients who underwent modified inguinal lymph node dissection as a means to diagnose micro-metastasis in inguinal lymph nodes, and analysed the outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed the hospital clinical charts of patients treated for carcinoma of the penis. Inguinal and distant metastases were assessed by physical examination, ultrasound imaging of the inguinal region, computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis and a chest radiograph. Patients with clinically negative inguinal lymph nodes underwent modified lymph node dissection (mILND) both to diagnose and stage the disease. Complications occurring during a 30-day period after surgery were defined as early and thereafter as late complications. A total of 40 patients with a mean age of 52.27±13.10 (range 25-73) years underwent mILND. Wedge biopsy from the primary lesion had revealed intermediate-risk disease in 22 (55%) patients and high-risk disease in 18 (45%) patients. Histopathological examination of the primary penile lesion revealed a pT1 lesion in 32 patients and a pT2 lesion in the remaining 8 patients. Fourteen (35%) of the 40 patients showed micro-metastases in the inguinal lymph nodes on frozen sections. The mean follow-up in these patients was 56.6±18.09 months. There were no instances of local or systemic recurrences seen in 38 (95%) patients within 5 years. Superficial lymph node dissection and where facilities are available DSLNB remain the standard of care in the management of patients with clinically groin-negative (cN0) intermediate- and high-risk groups. Modified inguinal lymph node dissection would be a safe and appropriate alternative to this in all centres that do not have access to newer modalities like DSLNB, video-endoscopic (VEIL) or robotic-assisted techniques.

Indexed as

Carcinoma penisInguinal lymph nodesModified lymph node dissectionSuperficial lymph node dissection

Identifiers

PMID33814858
PMCPMC7960866
OpenAlexW3128959068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.