Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37052480›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2023

Unilateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer Patients Diagnosed in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy: A Study That Challenges the Dogma.

Alberto Martini, Lieke Wever, Timo F W Soeterik, Arnas Rakauskas, Christian Daniel Fankhauser, Josias Bastian Grogg, Enrico Checcucci, Daniele Amparore, Luciano Haiquel, Lara Rodriguez-Sanchez and 34 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

44 authors at 18 institutions in 9 countries.

Alberto MartiniDepartment of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1272-7154
Lieke WeverSt Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Timo F W SoeterikSt Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Arnas RakauskasDepartment of Urology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Christian Daniel FankhauserDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Josias Bastian GroggDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Enrico CheccucciDepartment of Urology, San Luigi Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Daniele AmparoreDepartment of Urology, San Luigi Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Luciano HaiquelDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Lara Rodriguez-SanchezDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Guillaume PloussardDepartment of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Peng QiangDepartment of Urology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Andres AffentrangerDepartment of Urology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Alessandro MarquisDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Giancarlo MarraDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Otto EttalaDepartment of Urology, Turku University, Turku, Finland.
Fabio ZattoniUrology Unit, Academical Medical Centre Hospital, Udine, Italy.
Ugo Giovanni FalagarioDepartment of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Mario De AngelisUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Claudia KeschDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Maria ApfelbeckDepartment of Urology, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Tarek Al-HammouriDepartment of Urology, University College London and University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Alexander KretschmerDepartment of Urology, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Veeru KasivisvanathanDepartment of Urology, University College London and University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Felix PreisserDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Emilie LefebvreDepartment of Urology, CHU Lille, Lille, France.
Jonathan OlivierDepartment of Urology, CHU Lille, Lille, France.
Jan Philipp RadtkeDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Alberto BrigantiUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Francesco MontorsiUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe CarrieriDepartment of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Fabrizio Dal MoroUrology Unit, Academical Medical Centre Hospital, Udine, Italy.
Peter BoströmDepartment of Urology, Turku University, Turku, Finland.
Ivan JamborDepartment of Urology, Turku University, Turku, Finland.
Paolo GonteroDepartment of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Peter K ChiuSH Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Hubert JohnDepartment of Urology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Petr MacekDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Francesco PorpigliaDepartment of Urology, San Luigi Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Thomas HermannsDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Roderick C N van den BerghSt Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Jean-Paul A van BastenSt Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Giorgio GandagliaUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Massimo ValerioDepartment of Urology, Geneva University Hospital, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
St. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLVita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria San Giovanni Battista · ITInstitute Mutualiste Montsouris · FRKantonsspital Winterthur · CHUniversity of Turku · FIUniversity of Zurich · CHCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille · FRGerman Cancer Research Center · DEHôpital de la Croix-Rousse · FRLMU Klinikum · DEUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Foggia · ITUniversity of Padua · ITChinese University of Hong Kong · HKGoethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversity of Geneva · CHUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy is the current standard of care if pelvic lymph node dissection is indicated; often, however, pelvic lymph node dissection is performed in pN0 disease. With the more accurate staging achieved with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis, the indication for bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection may be revised MATERIALS AND

methodsWe analyzed a multi-institutional data set of men with cN0 disease diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy who underwent prostatectomy and bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection. The outcome of the study was lymph node invasion contralateral to the prostatic lobe with worse disease features, ie, dominant lobe. Logistic regression to predict lymph node invasion contralateral to the dominant lobe was generated and internally validated.

resultsOverall, data from 2,253 patients were considered. Lymph node invasion was documented in 302 (13%) patients; 83 (4%) patients had lymph node invasion contralateral to the dominant prostatic lobe. A model including prostate-specific antigen, maximum diameter of the index lesion, seminal vesicle invasion on magnetic resonance imaging, International Society of Urological Pathology grade in the nondominant side, and percentage of positive cores in the nondominant side achieved an area under the curve of 84% after internal validation. With a cutoff of contralateral lymph node invasion of 1%, 602 (27%) contralateral pelvic lymph node dissections would be omitted with only 1 (1.2%) lymph node invasion missed.

conclusionsPelvic lymph node dissection could be omitted contralateral to the prostate lobe with worse disease features in selected patients. We propose a model that can help avoid contralateral pelvic lymph node dissection in almost one-third of cases.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsBiopsyHumansLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstatectomyimage-guided biopsylymph node excisionmagnetic resonance imagingprostatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID37052480
PMCPMC12721613
OpenAlexW4365442721

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.