Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29610964›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2018

Epidemiology and screening for renal cancer.

Sabrina H Rossi, Tobias Klatte, Juliet Usher-Smith, Grant D Stewart

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 153 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
153citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
21.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

153 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 303 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

93 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sabrina H RossiAcademic Urology Group, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Box 43, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. sr725@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7048-7158
Tobias KlatteDepartment of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4392-6861
Juliet Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-2531
Grant D StewartAcademic Urology Group, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Box 43, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-9140
University of Cambridge · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe widespread use of abdominal imaging has affected the epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Despite this, over 25% of individuals with RCC have evidence of metastases at presentation. Screening for RCC has the potential to downstage the disease.

methodsWe performed a literature review on the epidemiology of RCC and evidence base regarding screening. Furthermore, contemporary RCC epidemiology data was obtained for the United Kingdom and trends in age-standardised rates of incidence and mortality were analysed by annual percentage change statistics and joinpoint regression.

resultsThe incidence of RCC in the UK increased by 3.1% annually from 1993 through 2014. Urinary dipstick is an inadequate screening tool due to low sensitivity and specificity. It is unlikely that CT would be recommended for population screening due to cost, radiation dose and increased potential for other incidental findings. Screening ultrasound has a sensitivity and specificity of 82-83% and 98-99%, respectively; however, accuracy is dependent on tumour size. No clinically validated urinary nor serum biomarkers have been identified. Major barriers to population screening include the relatively low prevalence of the disease, the potential for false positives and over-diagnosis of slow-growing RCCs. Individual patient risk-stratification based on a combination of risk factors may improve screening efficiency and minimise harms by identifying a group at high risk of RCC.

conclusionThe incidence of RCC is increasing. The optimal screening modality and target population remain to be elucidated. An analysis of the benefits and harms of screening for patients and society is warranted.

Indexed as

Age DistributionCarcinoma, Renal CellEarly Detection of CancerHumansIncidenceKidney NeoplasmsSensitivity and SpecificitySex DistributionTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyUnited KingdomEarly detectionRenal cell carcinomaReviewScreeningUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID29610964
PMCPMC6105141
OpenAlexW2795996358

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.