SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 2002; 168: 5148
  • 2
    Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 2002; 167: 16816
  • 3
    Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure? J Urol 2003; 169: 84954
  • 4
    Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 2006; 68: 1215
  • 5
    Castle EP, Lee D. Nomenclature of robotic procedures in urology. J Endourol 2008; 22: 146770
  • 6
    Cooperberg MR, Freedland SJ, Pasta DJ et al. Multiinstitutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2006; 107: 238491
  • 7
    Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58: 8438
  • 8
    Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA et al. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 170: 1798803
  • 9
    Burkhard FC, Bader P, Schneider E, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Reliability of preoperative values to determine the need for lymphadenectomy in patients with prostate cancer and meticulous lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 2002; 42: 8490
  • 10
    Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 11825
  • 11
    Touijer K, Rabbani F, Otero JR et al. Standard vs limited pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in patients with a predicted probability of nodal metastasis greater than 1%. J Urol 2007; 178: 1204
  • 12
    Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, Carter HB, Walsh PC. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 172: 18404
  • 13
    Daneshmand S, Quek ML, Stein JP et al. Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long-term results. J Urol 2004; 172: 22525
  • 14
    Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 17818
  • 15
    Berglund RK, Sadetsky N, DuChane J, Carroll PR, Klein EA. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy does not affect 5-year failure rates for low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2007; 177: 5269
  • 16
    DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2005; 173: 11215
  • 17
    Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MS et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169: 1457
  • 18
    Masterson TA, Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ et al. The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006; 175: 13204
  • 19
    Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Steinberg GD, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urol 2008; 179: 2833
  • 20
    Musch M, Klevecka V, Roggenbuck U, Kroepfl D. Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1,380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol 2008; 179: 9238
  • 21
    Wyler SF, Sulser T, Seifert HH et al. Laparoscopic extended pelvic lymph node dissection for high-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2006; 68: 8837
  • 22
    Lattouf JB, Beri A, Jeschke S, Sega W, Leeb K, Janetschek G. Laparoscopic extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: description of the surgical technique and initial results. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 134755
  • 23
    Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S. Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 2937
  • 24
    Prasad SM, Keating NL, Wang Q et al. Variations in surgeon volume and use of pelvic lymph node dissection with open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Urology 2008; 72: 64752
  • 25
    Briganti A, Capitanio U, Chun FK et al. Impact of surgical Volume on the rate of lymph node metastases in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 794802
  • 26
    Bochner BH, Herr HW, Reuter VE. Impact of separate versus en bloc pelvic lymph node dissection on the number of lymph nodes retrieved in cystectomy specimens. J Urol 2001; 166: 22956
  • 27
    Stein JP, Penson DF, Cai J et al. Radical cystectomy with extended lymphadenectomy: evaluating separate package versus en bloc submission for node positive bladder cancer. J Urol 2007; 177: 87681
  • 28
    Wawroschek F, Wagner T, Hamm M et al. The influence of serial sections, immunohistochemistry, and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection on the lymph node status in clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 1326