Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Is het doen van een pelviene lymfeklierdissectie bij prostaatkanker nog wel gerechtvaardigd nu PSMA PET/CT breed beschikbaar is?

Translated title of the contribution: Is performing a pelvic lymph-node dissection in prostate cancer still justified now that PSMA PET/CT is widely available?
  • André N. Vis*
  • , Bernard H. E. Jansen-Stensland
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Amsterdam UMC

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleProfessional

19 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The value of lymph-node dissection in prostate cancer remains a subject of ongoing debate. To date, no study has provided conclusive evidence of a long-term oncological benefit. In this context, lymph-node dissection primarily serves a diagnostic purpose. The introduction of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT imaging, characterized by its high sensitivity for detecting lymph-node metastases, increasingly approximates the diagnostic accuracy of pelvic lymph-node dissection (PLND). This technological advancement raises important ethical and clinical considerations regarding the necessity and justification of routinely performing an invasive procedure such as PLND in an era where high-quality, non-invasive imaging is readily available.
Translated title of the contributionIs performing a pelvic lymph-node dissection in prostate cancer still justified now that PSMA PET/CT is widely available?
Original languageDutch
JournalTijdschrift voor urologie
Early online date2025
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2025

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Lymph-node dissection
  • Oncological outcome
  • PSMA
  • Prostate cancer

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Is performing a pelvic lymph-node dissection in prostate cancer still justified now that PSMA PET/CT is widely available?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this