Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40399311›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Reevaluating the therapeutic role of extended lymph node dissection in the era of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Atsuro Sawada, Koshiro Nishimoto, Shusuke Akamatsu, Masashi Kubota, Takayuki Sumiyoshi, Ryoichi Saito, Ryoma Kurahashi, Yuya Sekine, Hiromitsu Negoro, Yusuke Shiraishi and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Editorial Comment on "Risk Model for Lymph Node-Positive Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy".International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025
    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

20 authors.

Atsuro SawadaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Japan. atsurou_sawada@med.miyazaki-u.ac.jp.
Koshiro NishimotoDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Japan.
Shusuke AkamatsuDepartment of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Masashi KubotaDepartment of Urology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54, Kawahara-Cho, Syogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Takayuki SumiyoshiDepartment of Urology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54, Kawahara-Cho, Syogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Ryoichi SaitoDepartment of Urology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54, Kawahara-Cho, Syogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Ryoma KurahashiDepartment of Urology, Kumamoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kumamoto, Japan.
Yuya SekineDepartment of Urology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Hiromitsu NegoroDepartment of Urology, Tsukuba University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsukuba, Japan.
Yusuke ShiraishiDepartment of Urology, Shizuoka General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan.
Ryo IguchiDepartment of Urology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Japan.
Masakazu NakashimaDepartment of Urology, Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama, Japan.
Kazuki KokuraDepartment of Urology, Toyooka Hospital, Toyooka, Japan.
Hiroshi IwamuraDepartment of Urology, Himeji Medical Center, Himeji, Japan.
Naoki KoheiDepartment of Urology, Numazu City Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan.
Kimihiro ShimataniDepartment of Urology, Hyogo Medical University, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Toshiyuki KamotoDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Japan.
Takashi KobayashiDepartment of Urology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54, Kawahara-Cho, Syogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, Japan. selecao@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.
Takayuki GotoDepartment of Urology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54, Kawahara-Cho, Syogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Daimonji Clinical Application Database (Dai-CAD) study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To elucidate the real-world oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and effectiveness of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ext-LDN) in the RARP era. Data from 8 194 patients who underwent RARP, including age, clinical T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) before prostate cancer diagnosis (initial PSA), follow-up years, biopsied specimen grade group (GG), and whether they underwent lymph node dissection or not and presurgical androgen deprivation therapy, were recorded. Oncological outcomes among three risk groups (low, intermediate, and poor risks) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. In intermediate and poor risk cohorts, PSA failure-free, clinical recurrence-free, castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were compared between the ext-LDN groups and no or limited lymph node dissection (no-ltd-LND) groups before and after propensity matching for initial PSA, clinical stage, GG, and androgen deprivation therapy. Four survivals (PSA failure-free, clinical recurrence-free, CRPC-free survival, and OS) were noted among the three risk groups that generally reflected the risks. In comparison between ext-LDN and no-ltd-LND groups, propensity matching matched four factors. No significant difference was observed in the four survivals with or without ext-LDN. In the intermediate-risk, high-risk, and locally advanced cohorts (cT3-4), similar analyses were performed as the subanalyses; no significant difference was observed in the three subanalyses. We showed survival differences among the risk groups and that extended pelvic lymph node dissection has no oncological effectiveness using the largest patient cohort in the literature.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID40399311
PMCPMC12095570

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.