ArticleScientific reports2025
Reevaluating the therapeutic role of extended lymph node dissection in the era of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
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.
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.
- Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference-JAPAN 2025 at the 112Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- 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 · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.