Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25903462›Full record

ArticleTargeted oncology2015

Comparison of Two Prognostic Models in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cancer Treated with Sunitinib: a Retrospective, Registry-Based Study.

Katerina Kubackova, Bohuslav Melichar, Zbynek Bortlicek, Tomas Pavlik, Alexandr Poprach, Marek Svoboda, Radek Lakomy, Rostislav Vyzula, Igor Kiss, Ladislav Dusek and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Targeted oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Contemporary treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2018
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Katerina KubackovaDepartment of Oncology, University Hospital in Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Bohuslav MelicharDepartment of Oncology, Palacky University Medical School and Teaching Hospital, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Zbynek BortlicekInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Tomas PavlikInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Alexandr PoprachDepartment of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.
Marek SvobodaDepartment of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.
Radek LakomyDepartment of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.
Rostislav VyzulaDepartment of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.
Igor KissDepartment of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.
Ladislav DusekInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Jana PrausovaDepartment of Oncology, University Hospital in Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Tomas BuchlerDepartment of Oncology and First Faculty of Medicine, Thomayer Hospital and Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. tomas.buchler@ftn.cz.
Czech Renal Cancer Cooperative Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study aimed to compare two prognostic models in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), and 1-year survival in patients treated first-line with sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

methodsData from patients who met prognostic model criteria for recording of baseline parameters and outcomes in the Czech Patient Registry RENal Information System (RENIS) were included in the retrospective analysis (n = 495). Performance of the modified Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model and International Database Consortium (IDC) model was compared. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The statistical significance of differences in Kaplan-Meier estimates was assessed using the log-rank test.

resultsMedian OS for prognostic groups according to MSKCC and IDC criteria, respectively, was 39.5 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 23.9-55.2) versus 44.3 months (95 % CI: 31.6-56.9) for favourable-risk patients (no adverse factors), 28.5 months (95 % CI: 20.1-36.8) versus 24.8 months (95 % CI: 19.8-29.8) for intermediate-risk patients (1-2 adverse factors), and 10.6 months (95 % CI: 6.3-14.8) versus 9.3 months (95 % CI: 5.1-13.5) for poor-risk patients (≥3 adverse factors). The majority of MSKCC poor-risk patients (54.1 %, n = 72) were reclassified as intermediate-risk using IDC criteria, and 20.2 % (n = 61) of MSKCC intermediate-risk patients were reclassified to the IDC favourable-risk group.

conclusionsBoth prognostic models were validated in the present cohort. Use of the IDC model resulted in an upward shift in prognostic assessment compared to the MSKCC model.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Renal CellDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansIndolesKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisPrognosisPyrrolesAntineoplastic AgentsIndolesPyrrolesSunitinib

Identifiers

PMID25903462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.