Bibliographic citations
Custodio, W., (2023). Efectividad de la linfadenectomía pélvica extendida versus limitada en pacientes con cáncer de próstata localizado de riesgo intermedio - alto: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis [Tesis, Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego]. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/10915
Custodio, W., Efectividad de la linfadenectomía pélvica extendida versus limitada en pacientes con cáncer de próstata localizado de riesgo intermedio - alto: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis [Tesis]. PE: Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego; 2023. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/10915
@misc{renati/378774,
title = "Efectividad de la linfadenectomía pélvica extendida versus limitada en pacientes con cáncer de próstata localizado de riesgo intermedio - alto: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis",
author = "Custodio Ordinola, Walter Erick",
publisher = "Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego",
year = "2023"
}
Therapeutic benefit of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) has not been proved with the recent evidence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efectivity of extended PLND (EPLND) in comparisson with limited PLND (LPLND) on improving biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCR-FS) in intermediate-high risk clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: Primary studies (RCT and observationals), with minimum follow-up time of 3 years, which compared EPLND vs LPLND on BCR-FS, metastasis-free survival (MFS) and cancer specific survival (CSS), irrespective of surgical approah and without language restriction were included. An advanced search strategy was done in databases as Pubmed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus y Embase until July 2022. Risk of bias across the studies was evaluated with Newcasttle-Ottawa for Cohorts and RoB 2.0 for RCT. A qualitative and quantitative synthesis were done. Data extracted from time-to-event variables were log(HR) and log(SE). Forest plots were used for presenting the synthesis. RESULTS: Two RCT and five cohorts studies were selected, with a total number of 7696 patients included. All the studies reported BCR-FS as outcome, but only one reported data of MFS and CSS. After meta-analysis of the low risk of bias studies (2 RCT and 2 cohorts), no statistical significant difference were showed between EPLND versus LPLND on BCR-FS (HR: 0.93 IC 95% [0.78-1.11], p=0.43, I2= 31%). MFS and CSS outcomes could not be analised. CONCLUSIONS: The included evidence synthesis suggest that the EPLND is not more effective than LPLND on improving BCR-FS in intermediate-high risk clinically localised PCa patients. Results were insufficient to make a conclusión about MFS and CSS outcomes, because its evaluation requires longer follow-up time.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License