Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29713755›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2018

Prognostic factors and prognostic models for renal cell carcinoma: a literature review.

Tobias Klatte, Sabrina H Rossi, Grant D Stewart

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed 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. It is linked to trial NCT05149196 (Impact of Goal-directed Hemodynamic Management on Occurrence of Acute and Persistent Kidney Injury After Radical Nephrectomy or Nephroureterectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 175 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
175citing 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.

NCT05149196 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Goal-directed Hemodynamic Management on Occurrence of Acute and Persistent Kidney Injury After Radical Nephrectomy or Nephroureterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorPeking University First HospitalRan2025 to 2034Enrolled1,724ConditionsNephrectomy, Nephroureterectomy, Hemodynamic Management, Acute Kidney InjuryArmsTargeted hemodynamic management, Routine care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tobias KlatteDepartment of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. tobias.klatte@gmx.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4392-6861
Sabrina H RossiDepartment of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7048-7158
Grant D StewartDepartment of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-9140

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFollowing curative treatment for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC), up to 30% of patients develop tumour recurrence. Prognostic scores are essential to guide individualised surveillance protocols, patient counselling and potentially in the future to guide adjuvant therapy. In metastatic RCC, prognostic scores are routinely used for treatment selection in clinical practice as well as in all major trials.

methodsWe performed a literature review on the current evidence based on prognostic factors and models for localised and metastatic RCC.

resultsA number of prognostic factors have been identified, of which tumour node metastasis classification remains the most important. Multiple prognostic models and nomograms have been developed for localised disease, based on a combination of tumour stage, grade, subtype, clinical features, and performance status. However, there is poor level of evidence for their routine use. Prognostic scores for patients with metastatic RCC receiving targeted treatments are used routinely, but have limited accuracy. Molecular markers can improve the accuracy of established prognostic models, but frequently lack external, independent validation.

conclusionSeveral factors and models predict prognosis of localised and metastatic RCC. They represent valuable tools to provide estimates of clinically important endpoints, but their accuracy should be improved further. Validation of molecular markers is a future research priority.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Renal CellChemotherapy, AdjuvantHumansKidney NeoplasmsNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisSurvival RateTumor BurdenBiomarkers, TumorBiomarkersMarkersPredictivePrognosisRenal cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.