Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35565455›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Patients with Positive Lymph Nodes after Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy-Do We Know the Proper Way of Management?

Bartosz Małkiewicz, Miłosz Knura, Małgorzata Łątkowska, Maximilian Kobylański, Krystian Nagi, Dawid Janczak, Joanna Chorbińska, Wojciech Krajewski, Jakub Karwacki, Tomasz Szydełko

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Bartosz MałkiewiczDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-566 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5933-3753
Miłosz KnuraDepartment of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-752 Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4522-2112
Małgorzata ŁątkowskaDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-566 Wroclaw, Poland.
Maximilian KobylańskiDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-566 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2138-7454
Krystian NagiDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-566 Wroclaw, Poland.
Dawid JanczakDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-566 Wroclaw, Poland.
Joanna ChorbińskaDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-566 Wroclaw, Poland.
Wojciech KrajewskiDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-566 Wroclaw, Poland.
Jakub KarwackiDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-566 Wroclaw, Poland.
Tomasz SzydełkoDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-566 Wroclaw, Poland.

Funding

Wrocław Medical University SUB.C090.19.046Wrocław Medical University SUB.C090.21.045
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lymph node invasion in prostate cancer is a significant prognostic factor indicating worse prognosis. While it significantly affects both survival rates and recurrence, proper management remains a controversial and unsolved issue. The thorough evaluation of risk factors associated with nodal involvement, such as lymph node density or extracapsular extension, is crucial to establish the potential expansion of the disease and to substratify patients clinically. There are multiple strategies that may be employed for patients with positive lymph nodes. Nowadays, therapeutic methods are generally based on observation, radiotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapy. However, the current guidelines are incoherent in terms of the most effective management approach. Future management strategies are expected to make use of novel diagnostic tools and therapies, such as photodynamic therapy or diagnostic imaging with prostate-specific membrane antigen. Nevertheless, this heterogeneous group of men remains a great therapeutic concern, and both the clarification of the guidelines and the optimal substratification of patients are required.

Indexed as

lymph node invasionprostate cancerradical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID35565455
PMCPMC9104304

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.