Benefit of a more extended pelvic lymph node dissection among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: A causal mediation analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The therapeutic role of extended (ePLND) versus nonextended pelvic lymph node dissection (nePLND) to remove occult micrometastases in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer (PC) is conflicting. Therefore, our aim was to quantify the direct effect of ePLND versus nePLND (removal of occult micrometastases), which is not mediated through the detection of nodal disease and potential adjuvant therapy (indirect effect). METHODS: Retrospective, bi-center cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and PLND for PC (January 2006 and December 2016). Patients were followed until April 2018 for the occurrence of either biochemical recurrence or secondary therapy (composite outcome). ePLND was compared to nePLND by unweighted and weighted survival analysis (total effect) as well as by causal mediation analysis (direct and indirect effect). RESULTS: Positive nodal disease was detected in 71 (7%) out of 1008 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and PLND for PC (ePLND: 368 [36.5%]; nePLND: 640 [63.5%]). Survival analysis demonstrated results in favor of ePLND (unweighted hazard ratio: 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.01], p = .056; weighted hazard ratio: 0.75 [0.56-0.99], p = .044). The causal mediation analysis confirmed the total effect of 0.77 (0.71-0.82). After disentangling this total effect into an indirect effect (via detection of nodal disease and potential adjuvant therapy) and a direct effect (via removal of occult micrometastases), we identified an even more protective direct effect of 0.69 (0.63-0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Our results not only indicate the utility of ePLND but also that its impact is not restricted to a staging benefit and probably involves a therapeutic benefit mediated through the removal of occult micrometastases.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".