Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41375044›Full record

ReviewCancers2025

Lymph Node Dissection for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Critical Appraisal of Lymph Node Mapping Studies.

Jesse Persily, Simon White, Katie Murray

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Jesse PersilyDepartment of Urology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY 10016, USA.
Simon WhiteDepartment of Urology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY 10016, USA.
Katie MurrayDepartment of Urology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY 10016, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the advent and growth of endoscopic and nephron-sparing management approaches, the mainstay treatment for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) in 2025 remains radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). Classic teaching, largely derived from the benefit seen in the muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) population, supports the inclusion of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (LND), particularly for high-risk and high-grade disease. However, no level 1 evidence exists supporting the inclusion of an LND at the time of extirpative surgery for UTUC. Moreover, studies attempting to map lymph node dissection relative to primary UTUC tumor location are plagued by limitations. Herein, we summarize and review available data regarding proposed LND templates for the management of UTUC.

Indexed as

lymph node dissectionlymph node mappinglymph node templatepelvic lymph node dissectionradical nephroureterectomyretroperitoneal lymph node dissectionretroperitoneumupper tract urothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID41375044
PMCPMC12691283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.