SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Which lymph node dissection template is optimal for radical cystectomy? A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of node-RADS in preoperatively detecting pelvic lymph node metastasis in bladder cancer.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Sentinel lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for bladder adenocarcinoma following gastrocystoplasty.Urology case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to determine the optimal pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) template for radical cystectomy (RC). Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database in December 2021. Articles comparing recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), overall survival (OS), and postoperative complications among patients undergoing limited PLND (lPLND), standard PLND (sPLND), extended PLND (ePLND), or super-extended PLND (sePLND) were included. A Bayesian approach was used for network meta-analysis. Results: We included 18 studies in this systematic review, and 17 studies met our criteria for network meta-analysis. We performed meta-analyses and network meta-analyses to investigate the associations between four PLND templates and the RFS, DSS, OS, or postoperative complications. We found that the ePLND group and the sePLND group were associated with better RFS than the sPLND group (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.65, 95% Credible Interval [CrI]: 0.56 to 0.78) (HR: 0.67, 95% CrI: 0.56 to 0.83) and the lPLND group (HR: 0.67, 95% CrI: 0.50 to 0.91) (HR: 0.70, 95% CrI: 0.49 to 0.99). For RFS, Analysis of the treatment ranking revealed that ePLND had the highest probabilities to be the best template. There was no significant difference between the four templates in DSS, however, analysis of the treatment ranking indicated that sePLND had the highest probabilities to be the best template. And We found that the sePLND group and the ePLND group were associated with better OS than lPLND (HR: 0.58, 95% CrI: 0.36 to 0.95) (HR: 0.63, 95% CrI: 0.41 to 0.94). For OS, analysis of the treatment ranking revealed that sePLND had the highest probabilities to be the best template. The results of meta-analyses and network meta-analyses showed that postoperative complications rates did not differ significantly between any two templates. Conclusion: Patients undergoing sePLND and ePLND had better RFS but not better DSS or OS than those undergoing lPLND or sPLND templates, however, RFS did not differ between patients undergoing sePLND or ePLND. Considering that sePLND involves longer operation time, higher risk, and greater degree of difficulty than ePLND, and performing sePLND may not result in better prognosis, so it seems that there is no need for seLPND. We think that ePLND might be the optimal PLND template for RC. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022318475.
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.