Skip to main content

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Genitourinary Oncology

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1464587

The role of lymphadenectomy in the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Provisionally accepted
Zuoping Wang Zuoping Wang 1Lei Zheng Lei Zheng 1Yunxiang Li Yunxiang Li 2*Lijian Gan Lijian Gan 1Chunyang Meng Chunyang Meng 1Kangsen Li Kangsen Li 1Zhiqiang Zeng Zhiqiang Zeng 3Si Ge Si Ge 3
  • 1 Department of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, Anhui Province, China
  • 2 North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
  • 3 Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan Province, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Background: The role of lymph node dissection (LND) in the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is still debated. This study was conducted to find evidence of a higher level of survival benefit based on whether LND was performed during nephroureterectomy (RNU) through systematic evaluation and meta-analysis.Method: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. A systematic search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, Cochran, and Web of Science libraries for literature published before November 1, 2022. We included all articles with LND performed during RNU and performed a standard meta-analysis of survival outcomes.Results: Twenty-seven eligible studies enrolling 47,874 patients met the inclusion criteria. The combined risk ratio (HR) of these studies showed an overall survival (OS) cancer-specific survival (CSS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) of 0.93 (P=0.123) and 0.79 (P=0.006) and 0.83 (P=0.013), respectively. Further subgroup analysis showed that in patients with muscle-invasive UTUC, the combined HRs for OS, CSS and RFS were 0.87 (0.074), 0.82 (P=0.001) and 0.83 (P=0.003), respectively. In contrast, there was no difference in CSS and RFS in patients with non-muscle invasive UTUC. no difference in OS and RFS between patients with LND negative (cN0) and without LND (cNx), while there was a difference in CSS. patients with LND-like (cN+) had a significantly worse prognosis compared to patients without LND (cN0)Conclusions: This study confirms that LND also has oncologic benefit in patients with UTUC, especially in patients with muscle-invasive UTUC. However, more cohort studies and randomized controlled trials are still needed to determine the specific indications for lymph node dissection and the extent of dissection.Keywords: upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC); lymph node dissection (LND); meta-analysis; radical nephroureterectomy; survival benefits

    Keywords: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), lymph node dissection (LND), Meta-analysis, Radical nephroureterectomy, Survival benefits

    Received: 15 Jul 2024; Accepted: 17 Feb 2025.

    Copyright: © 2025 Wang, Zheng, Li, Gan, Meng, Li, Zeng and Ge. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Yunxiang Li, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

    Research integrity at Frontiers

    Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset

    94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good

    Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.


    Find out more