% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Martini:275429,
      author       = {A. Martini and L. Wever and T. F. W. Soeterik and A.
                      Rakauskas and C. D. Fankhauser and J. B. Grogg and E.
                      Checcucci and D. Amparore and L. Haiquel and L.
                      Rodriguez-Sanchez and G. Ploussard and P. Qiang and A.
                      Affentranger and A. Marquis and G. Marra and O. Ettala and
                      F. Zattoni and U. G. Falagario and M. De Angelis and C.
                      Kesch$^*$ and M. Apfelbeck and T. Al-Hammouri and A.
                      Kretschmer and V. Kasivisvanathan and F. Preisser and E.
                      Lefebvre and J. Olivier and J. P. Radtke$^*$ and A. Briganti
                      and F. Montorsi and G. Carrieri and F. D. Moro and P.
                      Boström and I. Jambor and P. Gontero and P. K. Chiu and H.
                      John and P. Macek and F. Porpiglia and T. Hermanns and R. C.
                      N. van den Bergh and J. A. van Basten and G. Gandaglia and
                      M. Valerio},
      title        = {{U}nilateral {P}elvic {L}ymph {N}ode {D}issection in
                      {P}rostate {C}ancer {P}atients {D}iagnosed in the {E}ra of
                      {M}agnetic {R}esonance {I}maging-targeted {B}iopsy: {A}
                      {S}tudy {T}hat {C}hallenges the {D}ogma.},
      journal      = {The journal of urology},
      volume       = {210},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {0022-5347},
      address      = {New York, NY [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2023-00752},
      pages        = {117-127},
      year         = {2023},
      note         = {2023 Jul;210(1):117-127},
      abstract     = {Bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection at the time
                      of radical prostatectomy is the current standard of care if
                      pelvic lymph node dissection is indicated; often, however,
                      pelvic lymph node dissection is performed in pN0 disease.
                      With the more accurate staging achieved with magnetic
                      resonance imaging-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer
                      diagnosis, the indication for bilateral extended pelvic
                      lymph node dissection may be revised. We aimed to assess the
                      feasibility of unilateral extended pelvic lymph node
                      dissection in the era of modern prostate cancer imaging.We
                      analyzed a multi-institutional data set of men with cN0
                      disease diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted
                      biopsy who underwent prostatectomy and bilateral extended
                      pelvic lymph node dissection. The outcome of the study was
                      lymph node invasion contralateral to the prostatic lobe with
                      worse disease features, ie, dominant lobe. Logistic
                      regression to predict lymph node invasion contralateral to
                      the dominant lobe was generated and internally
                      validated.Overall, data from 2,253 patients were considered.
                      Lymph node invasion was documented in 302 $(13\%)$ patients;
                      83 $(4\%)$ patients had lymph node invasion contralateral to
                      the dominant prostatic lobe. A model including
                      prostate-specific antigen, maximum diameter of the index
                      lesion, seminal vesicle invasion on magnetic resonance
                      imaging, International Society of Urological Pathology grade
                      in the nondominant side, and percentage of positive cores in
                      the nondominant side achieved an area under the curve of
                      $84\%$ after internal validation. With a cutoff of
                      contralateral lymph node invasion of $1\%,$ 602 $(27\%)$
                      contralateral pelvic lymph node dissections would be omitted
                      with only 1 $(1.2\%)$ lymph node invasion missed.Pelvic
                      lymph node dissection could be omitted contralateral to the
                      prostate lobe with worse disease features in selected
                      patients. We propose a model that can help avoid
                      contralateral pelvic lymph node dissection in almost
                      one-third of cases.},
      keywords     = {magnetic resonance imaging (Other) / prostatic neoplasms
                      (Other)},
      cin          = {ED01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)ED01-20160331},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:37052480},
      doi          = {10.1097/JU.0000000000003442},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/275429},
}