ReviewCureus2025
Role of Lymph Node Dissection in Commonly Diagnosed Solid Organ Malignancies With High Mortality Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to review the literature and compare the outcomes of lymph node dissection (LND), or lymphadenectomy, versus no lymphadenectomy (no LND) and extended lymphadenectomy (ELND) versus standard lymphadenectomy (SLND) in various commonly diagnosed solid malignancies with high mortality rates in the United States. We searched for randomized controlled trials involving high-mortality solid tumors, including prostate, bladder, lung, breast, colorectal, pancreas, liver, endometrial, ovarian, and esophageal cancers, in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and complications. We identified 4,436 studies in a database search. Of the 43 eligible clinical trials in this study, 31 studies (72.1%) compared LND versus no LND, and the remaining 12 studies (27.9%) compared ELND versus SLND. None of the studies in either comparative group showed a significant difference in overall or recurrence-free survival, with the exception of one study in breast cancer, where ELND was associated with improved overall survival (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.30; p = 0.03) compared to SLND. However, ELND across several cancers may be associated with increased risks of complications compared to SLND. The results from this study could help with counseling patients regarding the role of LND in staging of the disease, rather than improving the outcomes. Despite the heterogeneity of the cancers included in this study, the commonality of the lack of survival benefit of LND in most cancers identifies an opportunity for further understanding and the need for additional research on the impact of metastasis to lymph nodes on cancer outcomes.
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.