ArticleCancer medicine2018
Modification of American Joint Committee on cancer prognostic groups for renal cell carcinoma.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Imaging diagnostics of kidney tumors : Scores and classification systems].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Multimodality staging of renal cell carcinoma-pearls & pitfalls.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Review
- A patient-derived ccRCC model that retains native stromal features to assess fibrosis-driven personalized therapeutic response.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Node-RADS category on preoperative CT predicts prognosis in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma.European radiology · 2025Article
- [A retrospective matching study of partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy for pathological T3a stage renal cell carcinoma].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy and systemic therapy in the management of tumour thrombus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Methylation-related genes involved in renal carcinoma progression.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Prognostic Significance ofMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2022Article
- Construction and validation of a novel prognostic nomogram for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a SEER-based study.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
- A 25 year perspective on the evolution and advances in an understanding of the biology, evaluation and treatment of kidney cancer.Urologic oncology · 2021Review
- Dissecting the role of lymphadenectomy in the management of renal cell carcinoma: past, present, and future.Kidney cancer journal : official journal of the Kidney Cancer Association · 2020Article
- To Be or "Node" to Be: Nodal Disease and the Role of Lymphadenectomy in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma.Medical research archives · 2020Article
- Reassessment of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging for Stage III Renal Cell Carcinoma With Nodal Involvement: Propensity Score Matched Analyses of a Large Population-Based Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Renal angiomyolipoma with IVC thrombus: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2020Article
- Strengthening the foundation of kidney cancer treatment and research: revising the AJCC staging system.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Revisiting AJCC TNM staging for renal cell carcinoma: quest for improvement.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Modification of American Joint Committee on cancer prognostic groups for renal cell carcinoma.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the predictive value of the current AJCC stage grouping for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to our modifications. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 2120 patients with RCC from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) database and 74 506 counterparts from SEER database were included. Cox regression was used to calculate the relative impacts between prognostic groups. The predictive accuracy of overall survival (OS) was assessed using the concordance index (C-index), which was compared by likelihood ratio test.
resultsIn FUSCC cohort, the 5-year-OS rate for T3N0M0 patients was higher than T1-3N1M0 (72.7% vs 38.1%). The 5-year-OS rate for T4N0M0 was 36.2%, which was close to T1-3N1M0 but not to T4N1M0 (0%) and TanyNanyM1 (12.6%). The elements of AJCC groups were regrouped according to the ranks of hazard ratios. The modified stages II (T3N0M0), III (T1-3N1M0, T4N0M0), and IV (T4N1M0, TanyNanyM1) exhibited greater survival stratification than AJCC groups. The modifications were validated in SEER cohort and yielded similar survival outcomes. The predictive accuracy of OS in modified prognostic groups was significantly higher than AJCC groups in stages II-IV subgroups in both FUSCC (C-index: 0.801 vs 0.779, P < 0.001) and SEER cohort (C-index: 0.770 vs 0.764, P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe modified AJCC prognostic groups for RCC provided significantly improved survival prediction compared with the 8th AJCC edition. A precise risk stratification of modified stages II-IV disease provides an important basis for risk-equivalent treatment recommendation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.