Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35284478›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022

External Validation and Comparison of Two Nomograms Predicting the Probability of Lymph Node Involvement in Patients subjected to Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Concomitant Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Tertiary Center Experience in the MRI-Era.

Nicola Frego, Marco Paciotti, Nicolò Maria Buffi, Davide Maffei, Roberto Contieri, Pier Paolo Avolio, Vittorio Fasulo, Alessandro Uleri, Massimo Lazzeri, Rodolfo Hurle and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicola FregoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Marco PaciottiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Nicolò Maria BuffiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Davide MaffeiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Roberto ContieriDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Pier Paolo AvolioDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Vittorio FasuloDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro UleriDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Massimo LazzeriDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Rodolfo HurleDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Alberto SaitaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Giorgio Ferruccio GuazzoniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Paolo CasaleDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni LughezzaniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Humanitas University · ITIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: To externally validate and directly compare the performance of the Briganti 2012 and Briganti 2019 nomograms as predictors of lymph node invasion (LNI) in a cohort of patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). Materials and Methods: After the exclusion of patients with incomplete biopsy, imaging, or clinical data, 752 patients who underwent RARP and ePLND between December 2014 to August 2021 at our center, were included. Among these patients, 327 (43.5%) had undergone multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and mpMRI-targeted biopsy. The preoperative risk of LNI was calculated for all patients using the Briganti 2012 nomogram, while the Briganti 2019 nomogram was used only in patients who had performed mpMRI with the combination of targeted and systematic biopsy. The performances of Briganti 2012 and 2019 models were evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis, calibrations plot, and decision curve analysis. Results: A median of 13 (IQR 9-18) nodes per patient was removed, and 78 (10.4%) patients had LNI at final pathology. The area under the curves (AUCs) for Briganti 2012 and 2019 were 0.84 and 0.82, respectively. The calibration plots showed a good correlation between the predicted probabilities and the observed proportion of LNI for both models, with a slight tendency to underestimation. The decision curve analysis (DCA) of the two models was similar, with a slightly higher net benefit for Briganti 2012 nomogram. In patients receiving both systematic- and targeted-biopsy, the Briganti 2012 accuracy was 0.85, and no significant difference was found between the AUCs of 2012 and 2019 nomograms ( Conclusion: The direct comparison of the two nomograms showed that the most updated nomogram, which included MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy data, was not significantly more accurate than the 2012 model in the prediction of LNI, suggesting a negligible role of mpMRI in the current population.

Indexed as

lymph node invasionmpMRInomogrampelvic lymph node dissectionprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID35284478
PMCPMC8913721
OpenAlexW4214714381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.