ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025
External validation of an algorithm to personalize nerve sparing approaches during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with unilateral high-risk prostate cancer.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning algorithm assisting diagnosis of prostate cancer extracapsular extension based on [Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- Nerve-Sparing in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Advantages and Pitfalls of Current Strategies and Technologies.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Limited evidence exists about preserving neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) patients. Hence, we validated an existing algorithm predicting contralateral extraprostatic extension (cEPE) risk in unilateral high-risk cases. This algorithm aims to assist in determining the suitability of unilateral nerve-sparing RP. Among 264 patients, 48 (18%) had cEPE. The risk of cECE varied: 8%, 17.2%, and 30.8% for the low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively. Despite a higher risk of cECE among individuals classified as low-risk in the development group compared to the validation group, our algorithm's superiority over always/never nerve-sparing RP was reaffirmed by decision curve analysis. Therefore, we conclude that bilateral excision may not always be justified in men with unilateral HRPCa. Instead, decisions can be based on our suggested nomogram.
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.