Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41974456›Full record

ReviewBJU international2026

Guideline of guidelines: pelvic lymph node dissection at time of radical prostatectomy.

Jonathon Carll, Jonathan Walbaum, Carlos Delgado, Elena Berg, Declan G Murphy, Marlon Perera, Ahmed Adam, John Yaxley, Nathan Lawrentschuk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJU international, 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

9 authors.

Jonathon CarllEJ Whitten Centre for Prostate Cancer Research, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0948-6468
Jonathan WalbaumDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-9086-8205
Carlos DelgadoDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0400-2647
Elena BergDepartment of Urology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0090-796X
Declan G MurphyDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7500-5899
Marlon PereraDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1138-6389
Ahmed AdamDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-9069-3282
John YaxleyWesley Urology Clinic, Wesley Hospital, Auchenflower, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6566-9037
Nathan LawrentschukEJ Whitten Centre for Prostate Cancer Research, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8553-5618

Funding

Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo provide a comprehensive review, analysis and critique of guidelines from various oncological and urological organisations regarding the use pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for primary treatment of prostate cancer (PCa).

methodsPubMed, Google Scholar and the official webpages of major urological and oncological societies were searched for PCa guidelines. Guidelines were assessed for recommendations and opinions regarding the use of PLND. A total of 15 guidelines were identified and included for this review.

resultsThere is consensus amongst guidelines that an extended template (ePLND), is the preferred templated when PLND is to be undertaken. The majority of guidelines acknowledge the lack of proven oncological benefit from PLND, and that the largest benefit is from improved staging information. However, there is significant divergence between the guidelines about which patients should undergo PLND. Some guidelines advocate for the abandonment of PLND altogether, whilst others adopt a risk-stratified approach, suggesting that patients should be offered PLND based on nomograms or clinical risk stratification.

conclusionWhilst ePLND is recommended by some guidelines for select patients undergoing RP, it remains a contentious topic with significant discordance between guidelines regarding patient selection. Given the lack of proven oncological benefit and significant morbidity from the procedure, careful selection is required. It is uncertain as to how pathological findings on PLND will change management given recent trends towards salvage rather than adjuvant radiotherapy, and improved preoperative staging with prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomography.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionPractice Guidelines as TopicProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleNeoplasm StagingPelvisguidelinespelvic lymph node dissectionprostate cancerprostate‐specific membrane antigen‐positron emission tomographystaging

Identifiers

PMID41974456
PMCPMC13371419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.