Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Extended vs non-extended pelvic lymph node dissection and their influence on recurrence-free survival in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) with non-extended pelvic lymph node dissection (non-ePLND) and assess their influence on recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.

METHODS: Through a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases in September 2012, we performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all comparative studies assessing the extent of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) and its influence on RFS.

RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 2824 patients were identified. Overall analysis showed a significantly better RFS rate in patients who had undergone ePLND than in those who had undergone non-ePLND (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; P < 0.001). A subgroup analysis found that, compared with non-ePLND, ePLND was associated with a better RFS rate for both patients with negative lymph nodes (HR: 0.68; P = 0.007) and those with positive lymph nodes (HR: 0.58; P < 0.001). When stratified by pathological T stage, ePLND provided additional RFS benefits for patients with pT3-4 disease (HR: 0.61; P < 0.001), but not for patients with ≤pT2 disease (HR: 0.95; P = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis indicate that ePLND provides a RFS benefit compared with non-ePLND. On subgroup analysis, ePLND provides better RFS not only for patients who had positive lymph nodes and pT3-4 disease, but also for patients with negative lymph nodes. Two randomized controlled trials on ePLND vs non-ePLND are awaited which should provide more clinically meaningful results.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app