A critical assessment of the value of lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy: A population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We tested relationship between pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) status at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP) and survival in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: Overall, 127,824 PCa patients treated with RP between 1988 and 2006 were included. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of PLND status (pN0 vs. pNx vs. pN1) on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) rates. RESULTS: In pT2 patients, the 5-, 10-, and 15-year CSM rates were: 0.4%, 1.7%, and 3.9% for pN0, 0.6%, 2.5%, and 4.7% for pNx, 2.7%, 11.9%, and 20.6% for pN1 patients (all P < 0.001). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year OM rates were: 5.4%, 16.3%, and 34.5% for pN0, 6.1%, 18.2%, and 35.3% for pNx, 11.5%, 32.7%, and 53.4% for pN1 (all P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, pNx and pN1 stage increased CSM rate, respectively by 1.3- and 3.8-fold (both P < 0.001) relative to pN0. Similarly, pNx and pN1 increased OM rate respectively by 1.1- and 1.6-fold (both P < 0.001) relative to pN0. In pT3 patients, pNx stage did not significantly increase CSM or OM rates relative to pN0 (both P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with localized PCa treated with RP without a PLND (pNx) have less favorable survival rate than their counterparts that do not harbor lymph node invasion at PLND. However, the difference is modest (0.8% at 10 years). In consequence, the related costs and benefits of this procedure should be weighted carefully. In addition, the survival benefit of PLND was not observed in locally advanced PCa patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".