Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34975195›Full record

ReviewActa clinica Croatica2019

THE ROLE OF LYMPHADENECTOMY IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS.

Dean Markić, Romano Oguić, Kristian Krpina, Ivan Vukelić, Gordana Đorđević, Iva Žuža, Josip Španjol

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Acta clinica Croatica, 2019. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  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

7 authors.

Dean Markić1Department of Urology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 2Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 5Department of Radiology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.
Romano Oguić1Department of Urology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 2Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 5Department of Radiology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.
Kristian Krpina1Department of Urology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 2Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 5Department of Radiology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.
Ivan Vukelić1Department of Urology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 2Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 5Department of Radiology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.
Gordana Đorđević1Department of Urology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 2Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 5Department of Radiology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.
Iva Žuža1Department of Urology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 2Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 5Department of Radiology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.
Josip Španjol1Department of Urology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 2Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; 5Department of Radiology, University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer is one of the most important men's health issues in developed countries. For patients with prostate cancer a preoperative staging of the disease must be made. Involvement of lymph nodes could be assessed using imaging methods (CT or/and MRI), however, newer methods also exist (PET/CT, PSMA PET/CT). For some patients during radical prostatectomy a pelvic lymphadenectomy is recommended. Pelvic lymphadenectomy is indicated in intermediate- and high-risk group patients and with increased probability of lymph node invasion. The most used prediction tools for preoperative assessment of lymph nodes are Briganti and MSKCC nomograms and Partin tables. Pelvic lymphadenectomy can include different lymph nodes group, but extended lymphadenectomy is the recommended procedure. In 1-20% of patients, the lymph node invasion is present. Pelvic lymphadenectomy is primarily a diagnostic and staging method, and in minority of patients with positive lymph nodes it can be a curative method, too. In other patients with positive lymph nodes adjuvant therapy (radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy) can be beneficial.

Indexed as

Pelvic lymph node dissectionProstate cancerRadical prostatectomyRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID34975195
PMCPMC8693562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.