Shiota M, Blas L, Eto M (2022) Current status and future perspective on the management of lymph node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Cancers 14(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14112696

Choo MS, Kim M, Ku JH, Kwak C, Kim HH, Jeong CW (2017) Extended versus standard pelvic lymph node dissection in radical prostatectomy on oncological and functional outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 24(7):2047–2054. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5822-6

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Iwamura H, Hatakeyama S, Narita T, Ozaki Y, Konishi S, Horiguchi H et al (2022) Significance of pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy. Sci Rep 12(1):9675. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13651-x

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Yuan CY, Briers E et al (2017) The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 72(1):84–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ötleş E, Denton BT, Qu B, Murali A, Merdan S, Auffenberg GB et al (2022) Development and validation of models to predict pathological outcomes of radical prostatectomy in regional and national cohorts. J Urol 207(2):358–366. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000002230

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zheng H, Miao Q, Liu Y, Mirak SA, Hosseiny M, Scalzo F et al (2022) Multiparametric MRI-based radiomics model to predict pelvic lymph node invasion for patients with prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 32(8):5688–5699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08625-6

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Zheng Z, Mao S, Gu Z, Wang R, Guo Y, Zhang W et al (2021) A genomic-clinicopathologic nomogram for the prediction of lymph node invasion in prostate cancer. J Oncol 2021:5554708. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5554708

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ucar T, Gunduz N, Demirci E, Culpan M, Gunel H, Kir G et al (2022) Comparison of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mp-MRI in regard to local staging for prostate cancer with histopathological results: A retrospective study. Prostate. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24420

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Schiavina R, Manferrari F, Garofalo M, Bertaccini A, Vagnoni V, Guidi M et al (2011) The extent of pelvic lymph node dissection correlates with the biochemical recurrence rate in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 108(8):1262–1268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10016.x

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yamashita S, Muraoka S, Wakamiya T (2022) Prognostic impact of lymphatic invasion in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended lymph node dissection: a single-institution prospective cohort study. Cancers 14(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14143466.

Hu J, Yu Y, Liu W (2022) The survival benefit of different lymph node yields in radical prostatectomy for pN1M0 prostate cancer patients: Implications from a population-based study. Front Oncol 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.953069.

Lestingi JFP, Guglielmetti GB, Trinh QD, Coelho RF, Pontes J Jr, Bastos DA et al (2021) Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: early oncological outcomes from a randomized phase 3 trial. Eur Urol 79(5):595–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.040

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wang F, Shu X, Pal T, Berlin J, Nguyen SM, Zheng W et al (2022) Racial/ethnic disparities in mortality related to access to care for major cancers in the United States. Cancers 14(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14143390

Małkiewicz B, Kiełb P, Karwacki J, Czerwińska R, Długosz P, Lemiński A et al (2022) Utility of lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: where do we stand? J Clinical Med 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11092343

Carlsson S, Bottai M, Lantz A, Bjartell A, Hugosson J, Steineck G et al (2022) Lymph swelling after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int 129(6):695–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15702

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Badani KK, Reddy BN, Moskowitz EJ, Paulucci DJ, Beksac AT, Martini A et al (2018) Lymph node yield during radical prostatectomy does not impact rate of biochemical recurrence in patients with seminal vesicle invasion and node-negative disease. Urologic Oncol 36(6):310.e1-.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.03.004

Article  Google Scholar 

Seyedin SN, Mitchell DL, Mott SL, Russo JK, Tracy CR, Snow AN et al (2019) Is more always better? an assessment of the impact of lymph node yield on outcome for clinically localized prostate cancer with low/intermediate risk pathology (pT2-3a/pN0) managed with prostatectomy alone. Pathol Oncol Res : POR 25(1):209–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-017-0349-5

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chung JH, Jeong JY, Lee JY, Song W, Kang M, Sung HH et al (2021) Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy according to nadir prostate specific antigen value. PLoS ONE 16(5):e0249709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249709

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Taguchi S, Morikawa T, Shibahara J, Fukuhara H (2021) Prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern in the contemporary era of Gleason grade grouping: A narrative review. Int J Urology : Off J Japanese Urological Assoc 28(6):614–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14524

Article  Google Scholar 

Lughezzani G, Gallina A, Larcher A, Briganti A, Capitanio U, Suardi N et al (2013) Radical prostatectomy represents an effective treatment in patients with specimen-confined high pathological Gleason score prostate cancer. BJU Int 111(5):723–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11114.x

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Preisser F, Wang N, Abrams-Pompe RS, Chun FK, Graefen M, Huland H et al (2022) Oncologic outcomes of organ-confined Gleason grade group 4-5 prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urologic Oncol 40(4):1619–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.11.019

Article  Google Scholar 

Heck MM, Retz M, Bandur M, Souchay M, Vitzthum E, Weirich G et al (2018) Molecular Lymph Node Status for Prognostic Stratification of Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy with Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection. Clin Cancer Res : An Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 24(10):2342–2349. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-17-3771

Article  Google Scholar 

He J, Albertsen PC, Moore D, Rotter D, Demissie K, Lu-Yao G (2017) Validation of a Contemporary Five-tiered Gleason Grade Grouping Using Population-based Data. Eur Urol 71(5):760–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.031

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Epstein JI (2022) Is Grade Group 1 (Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6) adenocarcinoma of the prostate really cancer? Curr Opin Urol 32(1):91–95. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000945

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Clinckaert A, Devos G, Roussel E, Joniau S (2021) Risk stratification tools in prostate cancer, where do we stand? Transl Androl Urol 10(1):12–18. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1211

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Zhou X, Qiu S, Jin K, Yuan Q, Jin D, Zhang Z et al (2021) Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival Among Patients With Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy Based on the Competing Risk Model: Population-Based Study. Front Surg 8:770169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.770169

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar