Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37953186›Full record

ArticleUrologic oncology2024

Pelvic lymphadenectomy: Evaluating nodal stage migration and will rogers effect in bladder cancer.

Lohit Sodagum, Rachel Passarelli, John Pfail, Hiren V Patel, Kevin Chua, Sai Krishnaraya Doppalapudi, David Golombos, Sammy E Elsamra, Eric A Singer, Thomas L Jang and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Urologic oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lohit SodagumDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
Rachel PassarelliDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
John PfailDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
Hiren V PatelDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
Kevin ChuaDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
Sai Krishnaraya DoppalapudiDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
David GolombosDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
Sammy E ElsamraDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
Eric A SingerDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
Thomas L JangDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
Arnav SrivastavaDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ. Electronic address: arnav.srivastava13@gmail.com.
Saum GhodoussipourDivision of Urology, Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROFILINGP30CA072720 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI Tracie Saunders · 1997 to 2026
$94.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA072720
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) alongside radical cystectomy (RC), provides crucial diagnostic and therapeutic value in patients with bladder cancer. With the advent of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and prospective data supporting standard PLND, controversy remains regarding the optimal PLND extent and patient selection. Nearly 40% of patients may not receive adequate PLND, even though 25% of patients have positive lymph nodes (LN) at time of RC. We hypothesized that PLND still remains an important facet of bladder cancer treatment. To clarify the prognostic importance of nodal yield, we performed a retrospective investigation of a heterogenous population (pTanyNx/0M0) of patients undergoing RC.

methodsFrom the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, we identified pTanyNx/0M0 bladder cancer patients undergoing RC from 2004 to 2015. Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models assessed cancer-specific survival. Patients were analyzed with PLND performed as the primary covariate. Survival analysis then stratified patients undergoing PLND by LN yield, both as a continuous and categorial variable (≤10, 11-20, 21-30, and >30), and T stage.

resultsThe final cohort included pTanyNx/0M0 patients with urothelial bladder cancer (n = 12,096); median follow up was 39 (IQR: 17-77) months. PLND was performed in 81.45% of patients with a median LN yield of 14 (IQR: 7-23). Most commonly, patients had T2 disease (44.68%). After controlling for age and T stage, patients receiving PLND had improved CSS (HR = 0.56, [95% CI: 0.51-0.62]) compared to those that did not receive PLND. When grouping patients by LN yield, survival improved in a "dose dependent" manner (>30 LN: HR = 0.76, [95% CI: 0.66-0.87]). We noted similar results when stratifying patients into non-muscle-invasive (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

conclusionsIn a large contemporary series of pTanyNx/0M0 bladder cancer patients, we found a significant oncologic benefit to PLND. Higher LN yield correlated to improved CSS in non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive disease. Our data support the possibility of occult micrometastasis even in non-muscle-invasive disease. Additionally, in light of recent advances in adjuvant immunotherapy, our results emphasize the importance of adequate nodal yield for accurate staging and optimal treatment.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsCystectomyHumansLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesBladder cancerLymph node dissectionUrothelial cancer

Identifiers

PMID37953186
PMCPMC10842630
OpenAlexW4388564558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.