Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28836063›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2017

Prognostic significance of Fuhrman grade and age for cancer-specific and overall survival in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma: results of an international multi-institutional study on 2189 patients.

H Borgmann, M Musquera, A Haferkamp, A Vilaseca, T Klatte, S F Shariat, A Scavuzzo, M A Jimenez Rios, I Wolff, U Capitanio and 20 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Preoperative prediction of WHO/ISUP grade of ccRCC using intratumoral and peritumoral habitat imaging: multicenter study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors.

H BorgmannDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
M MusqueraHospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. mmusquer@clinic.ub.es.
A HaferkampDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
A VilasecaHospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
T KlatteDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
S F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
A ScavuzzoDepartment of Urology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia-INCan, Mexico City, Mexico.
M A Jimenez RiosDepartment of Urology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia-INCan, Mexico City, Mexico.
I WolffCarl-Thiem-Klinikum Cottbus, Cottbus, Germany.
U CapitanioIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Department of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
P Dell'OglioIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Department of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
L M KrabbeDepartment of Urology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Münster, Germany.
E HerrmannDepartment of Urology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Münster, Germany.
T EckeDepartment of Urology, HELIOS Hospital Bad Saarow, Bad Saarow, Germany.
D VerghoDepartment of Urology and Paediatric Urology, Julius-Maximilians-University Medical Centre of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
N HuckMannheim Medical Center, Department of Urology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
N WagenerMannheim Medical Center, Department of Urology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
S PahernikDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
S ZastrowDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
M WirthDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
C SurcelCentre of Urological Surgery, Dialysis and Renal Transplantation, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
C MirvaldCentre of Urological Surgery, Dialysis and Renal Transplantation, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
K ProchazkovaDepartment of Urology, Faculty Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
G HuttererDepartment of Urology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
R ZigeunerDepartment of Urology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
L CindoloDepartment of Urology, ASL Abruzzo 2, Chieti, Italy.
M HoraDepartment of Urology, Faculty Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
C G StiefDepartment of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Campus Grosshadern, Marchionistrasse 15, Munich, 81377, Germany.
M MayDepartment of Urology, Klinikum St. Elisabeth Straubing, Straubing, Germany.
S D Brookman-MayDepartment of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Campus Grosshadern, Marchionistrasse 15, Munich, 81377, Germany. sabine.brookman-may@email.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBecause the prognostic impact of the clinical and pathological features on cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma (papRCC) is still controversial, we want to assess the impact of clinicopathological features, including Fuhrman grade and age, on survival in surgically treated papRCC patients in a large multi-institutional series.

methodsWe established a comprehensive multi-institutional database of surgically treated papRCC patients. Histopathological data collected from 2189 patients with papRCC after radical nephrectomy or nephron-sparing surgery were pooled from 18 centres in Europe and North America. OS and CSS probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable competing risks analyses were used to assess the impact of Fuhrman grade (FG1-FG4) and age groups (<50 years, 50-75 years, >75 years) on cancer-specific mortality (CSM).

resultsCSS and OS rates for patients were 89 and 81% at 3 years, 86 and 75% at 5 years and 78 and 41% at 10 years after surgery, respectively. CSM differed significantly between FG 3 (hazard ratio [HR] 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-8.22; p < 0.001) and FG 4 (HR 8.93, 95% CI 4.25-18.79; p < 0.001) in comparison to FG 1. CSM was significantly worse in patients aged >75 (HR 2.85, 95% CI 2.06-3.95; p < 0.001) compared to <50 years.

conclusionsFG is a strong prognostic factor for CSS in papRCC patients. In addition, patients older than 75 have worse CSM than patients younger than 50 years. These findings should be considered for clinical decision making.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsNephrectomyAgedEuropeFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMortalityNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingNorth AmericaOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPrognosisGradingKidney cancerMortalityRenal cancerRenal cell carcinomaSubtype

Identifiers

PMID28836063

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.