ArticleProstate international2026
Practice patterns of Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand urologists regarding pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer surgery.
Article in Prostate international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study was to investigate the current approach of urologists within the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) regarding the clinical criteria and anatomical templates for performing pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients in the era of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) computed tomography imaging technologies. Materials and methods: An online cross-sectional survey was distributed to all USANZ members. Participants were questioned about their expertise, surgical volume, clinical focus of practice, preoperative imaging approach, indications and anatomical description of PLND, and surgical approach. Results: Of the 611 members invited, 113 (18%) responded to the survey and were included. Most urologists were working in private practice (49%) and completed a uro-oncology fellowship (73%). Fifty-five percent had finished their training over 10 years ago. Forty-two percent had performed more than 50 procedures a year, and 60% of them were done robotically. Ninety-seven percent of urologists routinely performed a preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and 18% performed a systematic PSMA-PET scan. When performing more than one technique, the indication and extent of the PLND was dependent on the technique for 9% of urologists. The anatomical extent of the routine PLND was mainly obturator fossa and external iliac (98% and 68%, respectively). Most urologists performed bilateral PLND on unfavorable intermediate-/high-risk PCa patients (75%). Conclusions: The findings of this survey offer a valuable understanding into the current practices of USANZ urologists regarding PLND in PCa surgery, which highlights the absence of consistency in determining the indication and extent of this procedure. PSMA-PET scans have an impact on the urologist's decision-making practices and therefore warrant further examination.
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.