ReviewFrontiers in oncology2021
The Role of Lymph Node Dissection for Non-Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Lymphatic-Bone Axis in Cancer Metastasis.Cancers · 2026Review
- Downregulation of SALL1 and its association with poor prognosis and the immune cell landscape in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- The Current Role of Lymph Node Dissection in Nonmetastatic Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The Sentinel Lymph Node in Treatment Planning: A Narrative Review of Lymph-Flow-Guided Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2023Review
- Performance of CT radiomics in predicting the overall survival of patients with stage III clear cell renal carcinoma after radical nephrectomy.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- Round up.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo compare the survival benefit of nephrectomy with or without lymph node dissection (LND) for non-metastatic, especially for high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients by investigating different survival evaluation indicators. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Eligible studies were identified until September 2021, through common databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) on RCC and LND without language restriction. Data analysis was performed through Stata software, version 16.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: 22 articles were included in this meta-analysis. For non-metastatic RCC, performing LND comitantly with nephrectomy did not change the overall survival (OS) of patients of all T stages [hazard ratio (HR)=1.10, 95%CI: 0.95-1.27] and also for T2+NxM0 patients (HR=0.88, 95%CI: 0.68-1.14) as well as for T3+NxM0 patients (HR=0.95, 95%CI: 0.61-1.50). At the same time, cumulative meta-analysis has shown that the survival benefit of LND has a significant declining trend since 1979. However, it is worth noting that the operation of LND presented as a risk factor for cancer specific survival (CSS) (HR=1.22, 95%CI: 1.05-1.43).
conclusionsLatest evidence indicated that LND might not be suitable for all non-metastatic RCC patients, especially in the current situation of various non-invasive examinations for judging lymph node metastasis and adjuvant treatments. On the contrary, excess LND could damage the survival of patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021271124.
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.