Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28934212›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Outcome of papillary versus clear cell renal cell carcinoma varies significantly in non-metastatic disease.

Nina Wagener, Dominic Edelmann, Axel Benner, Richard Zigeuner, Hendrik Borgmann, Ingmar Wolff, Laura M Krabbe, Mireia Musquera, Paolo Dell'Oglio, Umberto Capitanio and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Prognostic models in papillary renal cell carcinoma.Annals of translational medicine · 2020
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Nina WagenerDepartment of Urology, Mannheim Medical Center, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5029-8656
Dominic EdelmannDivision of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Axel BennerDivision of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Richard ZigeunerDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Hendrik BorgmannDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Ingmar WolffDepartment of Urology, Carl-Thiem-Klinikum Cottbus, Cottbus, Germany.
Laura M KrabbeDepartment of Urology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Muenster, Germany.
Mireia MusqueraDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Paolo Dell'OglioUnit of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute (URI), San Raffaele Scientific Institute, University Vita-Salute, Milan, Italy.
Umberto CapitanioUnit of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute (URI), San Raffaele Scientific Institute, University Vita-Salute, Milan, Italy.
Tobias KlatteDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Luca CindoloDepartment of Urology, San Pio da Pietrelcina Hospital, Vasto, Italy.
Matthias MayDepartment of Urology, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Straubing, Straubing, Germany.
Sabine D Brookman-MayDepartment of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany.
European Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Cancer Group
German Cancer Research Center · DEBarmherzige Brüder Klinikum St. Elisabeth in Straubing · DECarl-Thiem-Klinikum Cottbus · DEHeidelberg University · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMedical University of Graz · ATMedical University of Vienna · ATUniversitat de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) comprises a heterogenous group of tumors. Traditionally, papillary RCC (pRCC) is associated with a favorable outcome compared to clear cell RCC (ccRCC), while other series report equivalent or worse prognosis. In this paper we comparatively evaluate outcome of pRCC versus ccRCC in two large multi-institutional databases (cohort study), including distribution of pRCC subtypes 1 and 2. Retrospective data of 1,943 surgically treated pRCC patients from 17 European/ North American centers between 1984-2015 were compared to 5,600 ccRCC patients from a database comprising 11 European/ North American centers (1984-2011). Median follow-up was 64.6 months. Differences between pRCC, subtypes, and ccRCC were compared with t-tests, Chi^2-tests, and exact Fisher tests. Cancer-specific mortality was analyzed with cumulative incidence curves and Cox cause-specific hazard models. The robustness of our results was examined with sensitivity analyses. We present that cancer-specific mortality rates and variables as stage, lymph node, and distant metastasis differ significantly between groups. Furthermore, we demonstrate that patients with non-metastatic pRCC had a significantly better cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.76, p = 0.007), when compared to ccRCC. Additionally, pRCC type 2 versus ccRCC exhibited no difference in cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.9, p = 0.722), whereas pRCC type 1 versus ccRCC displayed a risk of death reduced by 69% (p = 0.044). Taken together, outcome of pRCC versus ccRCC varies significantly in non-metastatic disease. Furthermore, pRCC type 2 exhibited no difference in cancer-specific mortality, whereas pRCC type 1 displayed a significantly reduced risk of death. Consequently, there is urgent need to respect histopathological entities and their subtypes, when assigning follow-up or targeted therapy to RCC patients.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, PapillaryCarcinoma, Renal CellDatabases, FactualEuropeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm MetastasisNorth AmericaProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

PMID28934212
PMCPMC5608215
OpenAlexW2603926294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.