Platinum Priority – Kidney Cancer Editorial by Urs E. Studer and Fre´de´ric D. Birkha ¨user on pp. 35–37 of this issue Radical Nephrectomy with and without Lymph-Node Dissection: Final Results of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Randomized Phase 3 Trial 30881 Jan H.M. Blom a, *, Hein van Poppel b , Jean M. Mare ´chal c , Didier Jacqmin d , Fritz H. Schro ¨ der e , Linda de Prijck f , Richard Sylvester f , for the EORTC Genitourinary Tract Cancer Group a St. Franciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands b University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium c Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France d Hospices Civil de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France e Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands f EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium european urology 55 (2009) 28–34 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com Article info Article history: Accepted September 23, 2008 Published online ahead of print on October 1, 2008 Keywords: Renal cell cancer Radical nephrectomy Lymph-node dissection Lymph-node metastases Survival Abstract Background: Until now the therapeutic value of lymphadenectomy for renal-cell carcinoma has remained controversial. Several studies attempting to solve this controversy have been published, but none of them were set up as prospective randomized trials. Objective: To assess whether a complete lymph-node dissection in conjunction with a radical nephrectomy for renal-cell cancer is more effective than a radical nephrectomy alone. Design, setting, and participants: In 1988, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Genitourinary Group started a randomized phase 3 trial comparing radical nephrectomy with a complete lymphadenectomy to radical nephrectomy alone. After the renal-cell carcinoma was judged to be N0M0 and resectable, patients were randomly selected prior to surgery to undergo either a radical nephrectomy with a complete lymph-node dissection or to undergo a radical nephrectomy alone. Postoperatively all patients were followed for progression of disease and mortality. Intervention: All patients underwent a radical nephrectomy with or without a complete lymph-node dissection. Measurements: All patients were postoperatively evaluated for time-to-progression, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Time-to-event curves were estimated based on the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using a two-sided log-rank test. Results and limitations: Of the 772 patients selected for randomization, 40 were not eligible for the study. 383 patients were randomly selected to receive a complete lymph-node dissection together with a radical nephrectomy, and 389 patients were randomly selected to undergo a radical nephrectomy alone. The complication rate did not differ significantly between the two groups. Complete lymph-node dissections in 346 patients revealed an absence of lymph-node metastases in 332 patients. The study revealed no significant differences in overall survival, time to progression of disease, or progression-free survival between the two study groups. Conclusions: This study shows that, after proper preoperative staging, the incidence of unsuspected lymph-node metastases is low (4.0%) and that, notwithstanding a possible relationship to this low incidence rate, no survival advantage of a complete lymph-node dissection in conjunction with a radical nephrectomy could be demonstrated. # 2008 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. Department of Urology, St. Franciscus Gasthuis, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel. +31 10 461 6257; Fax: +31 10 461.6759. E-mail address: j.blom@sfg.nl (Jan H.M. Blom). 0302-2838/$ – see back matter # 2008 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.052