Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29682181›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2018

High competing risks minimize real-world utility of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma: a population-based analysis.

Thenappan Chandrasekar, Zachary Klaassen, Hanan Goldberg, Rashid K Sayyid, Girish S Kulkarni, Neil E Fleshner

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Active surveillance in favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients: Predictors of deferred intervention and treatment choice.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thenappan ChandrasekarDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Zachary KlaassenDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Hanan GoldbergDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rashid K SayyidDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Girish S KulkarniDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Neil E FleshnerDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo utilize a population-based approach to address the role of adjuvant TT in the management of RCC.

methodsPatients with RCC (2006-2013) in the SEER database were stratified by metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis (cM0/cM1). cM0 patients following surgical excision were stratified into low and high-risk (ASSURE and S-TRAC criteria). Multivariable analyses performed to identify predictors of TT receipt; Fine and Gray competing risks analyses used to identify predictors of cancer-specific mortality (CSM). Subset analyses included patients with clear cell histology and high-risk cM0. Survival analyses were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) for all cohorts, stratified on TT receipt.

results79,926 patients included (71,682 cM0, 8,244 cM1); median follow-up for the entire cohort was 40.1 months. Of 31,453 patients with histologic grade data, 18,328 and 13,125 were low- and high-risk cM0, respectively. TT utilization in cM1 patients peaked at 50.6% and was associated with reduced CSM (HR 0.73, p<0.01). In contrast, TT utilization (presumed salvage therapy) never exceeded 2.2% in the entire cM0 cohort and 3.5% in the high-risk cM0 cohort. On competing risks analysis, TT receipt was associated with increased CSM in all cohorts.

conclusionWhen compared to the cM1 patients, TT receipt in cM0 patients does not provide any cancer-specific survival benefit, even in the small percentage of patients that eventually progress to metastatic disease. Competing risks mortality further limit any potential benefit in this population. Based on current evidence, adjuvant TT cannot be recommended for RCC patients.

Indexed as

carcinoma, renal celldrug therapymortalityneoplasm metastasissurvival

Identifiers

PMID29682181
PMCPMC5908282
OpenAlexW2794582683

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.