ArticleBMC urology2023
Benefit and harm of lymphadenectomy in intermediate risk prostate cancer: comparison of five nomograms.
Article in BMC urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prostate Cancer Treatment: Cryoablation in Context.Cancers · 2026Review
- Practice patterns of Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand urologists regarding pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer surgery.Prostate international · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection on Early Oncological Outcomes in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients With Node-Negative PSMA PET.The Prostate · 2025Article
- Perform tumor-specific survival analysis for Merkel cell carcinoma patients undergoing surgical resection based on the SEER database by constructing a nomogram chart.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is recommended method for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) nodal metastases although associated with serious complications. In this study, we aimed to assess benefit/harm of routine PLND in intermediate risk PCa patients and to compare diagnostic yield of five different nomograms in predicting lymph node invasion (LNI).
methodsRetrospective analysis of consecutive PCa patients with intermediate risk of biochemical recurrence who underwent open radical prostatectomy (RP) with bilateral PLND between January 2017 and December 2019 at our institution. Partin, 2012-Briganti, 2018-Briganti, Cagiannos and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) values were calculated. To compare accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver-operating curve (AUC) were calculated and then optimal cutoff values were estimated, analyses repeated and compared. To assess benefit and harm of PLND, relative risk (RR) and number need to treat (NNT) with LNI and complications set as outcome were calculated.
resultsTotal 309 subjects. Average age 62.2 years, average PSA 7.2 ng/mL; 18 (5.8%) had LNI; 88 (28.5%) suffered Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5 complication. AUC for predicting LNI: 0.729 for 2012-Briganti, 0.660 for MSKCC, 0.521 for 2018-Briganti, 0.486 for Cagiannos, and 0.424 for Partin. None of pairwise AUC comparisons based on default and newly established cutoff values were statistically significant. Lowest NNT was for Partin and Cagiannos with default cutoff (≥ 5%). Risks of serious complications between higher/lower than cutoff values were non-significant across nomograms.
conclusions2012-Briganti nomogram outperforms, although not significantly, MSKCC, 2018-Briganti, Cagiannos, and Partin nomograms in classifying LNI in intermediate risk PCa patients. Routine PLND in these patients should be avoided, due to high rate and severity of complications.
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.