ArticleCancers2025
Extended Lymph Node Dissection May Not Provide a Therapeutic Benefit in Patients with Intermediate-to High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeted pelvic lymph node dissection using magnetic resonance imaging - ultrasonography fusion technique and indocyanine green injection in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Preoperative prediction of pathological pelvic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer using an elastic net model integrating clinicopathologic andScientific reports · 2026Article
- The utility of pelvic lymph node dissection in PSMA-PET negative intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Hybrid Surgical Guidance in Urologic Robotic Oncological Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe therapeutic efficacy of extended lymph node dissection (ePLND) for intermediate- and high-risk (IR/HR) prostate cancer remains controversial. This study evaluated whether PLND improved biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates in patients with prostate cancer undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using a propensity matching method with cases from two facilities.
methodsThe study included 1002 patients with IR/HR disease who underwent RARP at two facilities with equivalent surgical techniques and hospital size but different ePLND policies for IR/HR between July 2012 and November 2022. We compared perioperative outcomes, complications, and biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) between the centers.
resultsAfter propensity matching, 221 and 124 cases, each at intermediate and high risk, respectively, were compared. Except for age, preoperative clinicopathological variables did not differ significantly between the matched ePLND and non-PLND groups. A median of 18 lymph nodes were assessed in the dissection group. The 3-year bRFS rates did not differ significantly between ePLND and non-PLND among intermediate-risk and high-risk patients. The dissection group had significantly longer operative times and more complications associated with ePLND, including lower extremity edema, pelvic hematoma, and neuropathy. A multivariable Cox regression analysis performed after propensity adjustment identified initial prostate-specific antigens, pathological tumor stage (high-risk only), and positive surgical margins as independent prognostic factors for bRFS while ePLND was not significant.
conclusionsThese results suggest that ePLND may not be necessary in intermediate- to high-risk PCa patients undergoing RARP, although further study with a longer follow-up is required.
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.