Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/2429
Title: Guideline of guidelines: pelvic lymph node dissection at time of radical prostatectomy.
Epworth Authors: Carll, Jonathon
Lawrentschuk, Nathan
Other Authors: Walbaum, Jonathan
Delgado, Carlos
Berg, Elena
Murphy, Declan
Perera, Marlon
Adam, Ahmed
Yaxley, John
Keywords: Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection
PLND
Radical Prostatectomy
RP
Prostate Cancer
Primary Treatment of Prostate Cancer
PCa
Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-positron Emission Tomography
Staging
Guidelines
Extended Template
ePLND
Patient Selection
EJ Whitten Centre for Prostate Cancer Research, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Cancer Services Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australia
Urology and Vascular Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australia
Issue Date: Apr-2026
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Citation: BJU Int. 2026 Apr 13
Abstract: Objective: To provide a comprehensive review, analysis and critique of guidelines from various oncological and urological organisations regarding the use pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for primary treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar and the official webpages of major urological and oncological societies were searched for PCa guidelines. Guidelines were assessed for recommendations and opinions regarding the use of PLND. A total of 15 guidelines were identified and included for this review. Results: There is consensus amongst guidelines that an extended template (ePLND), is the preferred templated when PLND is to be undertaken. The majority of guidelines acknowledge the lack of proven oncological benefit from PLND, and that the largest benefit is from improved staging information. However, there is significant divergence between the guidelines about which patients should undergo PLND. Some guidelines advocate for the abandonment of PLND altogether, whilst others adopt a risk-stratified approach, suggesting that patients should be offered PLND based on nomograms or clinical risk stratification. Conclusion: Whilst ePLND is recommended by some guidelines for select patients undergoing RP, it remains a contentious topic with significant discordance between guidelines regarding patient selection. Given the lack of proven oncological benefit and significant morbidity from the procedure, careful selection is required. It is uncertain as to how pathological findings on PLND will change management given recent trends towards salvage rather than adjuvant radiotherapy, and improved preoperative staging with prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomography.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/2429
DOI: 10.1111/bju.70277
PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41974456/
ISSN: 1464-410X
1464-4096
Journal Title: BJU International
Type: Journal Article
Affiliated Organisations: Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Urology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Urology, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Department of Urology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Department of Surgery, Austin Healthcare, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Wesley Urology Clinic, Wesley Hospital, Auchenflower, Queensland, Australia
UQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Type of Clinical Study or Trial: Literature Review
Appears in Collections:Cancer Services
Epworth Prostate Centre
UroRenal, Vascular



Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.