Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41541839›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2026

Impact of Negative Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography on the Decision to Perform a Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- to High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients: Results of an International Survey.

Fabio Zattoni, Pawel Rajwa, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Lara Rodriguez Sanchez, Tamás Fazekas, Felix Preisser, Claudia Kesch, Alberto Martini, Giuseppe Reitano, August Sigle and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

25 authors.

Fabio ZattoniUrologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Veeru KasivisvanathanCentre for Urology Imaging, Prostate, AI and Surgical Studies (COMPASS) Research Group, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Lara Rodriguez SanchezUrology Department, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Tamás FazekasDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Felix PreisserMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Claudia KeschDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Alberto MartiniDepartment of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Giuseppe ReitanoUrologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
August SigleDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Jonathan OlivierUrology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, Lille, France.
Rossella NicolettiUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Rui BernardinoDepartment of Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Isabel HeideggerDepartment of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Lorenzo BianchiDivision of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Matteo BaucknehtIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Francesco GigantiDepartment of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alexander GiesenDepartment of Urology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Timo SoeterikDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Roderick van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Juan Gomez RivasDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Fabrizio Dal MoroUrologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Giorgio Ivan RussoUrology Section, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Giorgio GandagliaUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Giancarlo MarraVita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is considered the most reliable method for managing prostate cancer (PCa). However, the role of PLND remains controversial in both clinical practice and guideline recommendations. This study aims to characterize contemporary practices and attitudes related to extended and/or limited PLND in PCa management during radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from February to May 2025. The survey was disseminated through the official mailing lists of several prominent urological societies worldwide. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify the predictors of the performance and perceived benefits of PLND in high-risk PCa patients, considering clinical, institutional, and practitioner-related factors. Key findings and limitations: Our survey of 438 urologists revealed that 80% always perform PLND in European Association of Urology (EAU) high-risk patients during RP, while 18% do so selectively and only 2.6% never do. Among high-risk, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)-negative patients, 53% opt for extended PLND and 39% for standard PLND. The remaining 7.6% either undergo limited/unilateral PLND or do not receive it at all. Notably, only 22% believe in the therapeutic benefit of extended PLND in high-risk PSMA-PET-negative patients, with this proportion increasing to 47% for PSMA-PET-positive cases. The primary rationale for PLND was staging (43%), followed by detecting micrometastases (31%). Multivariable analyses showed that PLND for EAU high-risk patients during RP was independently associated with treatments performed in university/referral centers structured risk stratification following the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines ,and the use of nomograms. Resource limitations, particularly concerns about hospital stays due to complications (58.9%), and reimbursement policy for PLND (30%) impacted PLND practices significantly. Key limitations of the study include a potential selection bias and mainly European responses. Conclusions and clinical implications: Significant variability persists in PLND practices despite evolving guidelines and imaging. Patient summary: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is a procedure in which lymph nodes are removed and examined during prostate cancer surgery (prostatectomy) to determine whether the cancer has spread. We surveyed urologists worldwide about their current use of this procedure during prostatectomy. The introduction of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography scans has changed how doctors decide when to perform PLND. Our findings show considerable variation in practice and persistent uncertainty about its benefits, underscoring the need for further research to guide treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Lymph node dissectionNomogramProstate cancerProstate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomographyRadical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID41541839
PMCPMC12800637

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.