ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2019
Growth rates and outcomes of observed large renal masses.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abnormal expression of CEBPB promotes the progression of renal cell carcinoma through regulating the generation of IL-6.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Natural history of untreated kidney cancer.World journal of urology · 2021Review
- Management of urologic cancers during the pandemic and potential impact of treatment deferrals on outcomes.Urologic oncology · 2021Article
- Article
- Active surveillance of small renal masses.Insights into imaging · 2020Review
- circPTCH1 promotes invasion and metastasis in renal cell carcinoma via regulating miR-485-5p/MMP14 axis.Theranostics · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe natural history of small renal masses has been well defined, leading to the recommendation of active surveillance in some patients with limited life expectancy. However, this information is less clear for large renal masses (LRM), leading to ambiguity for management in the older, comorbid patient. The objective of this study was to define the natural history, including the growth rate and metastatic risk, of LRM in order to better counsel patients regarding active surveillance.
methodsThis was a retrospective review of patients with solid renal masses >4 cm that had repeated imaging identified from an institutional imaging database. Patient comorbidities and outcomes were obtained through retrospective chart analysis. Outcomes assessed included tumour growth and metastatic rates, as well as cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) usimg Kaplan-Meier methodology.
resultsWe identified 69 patients between 2005 and 2016 who met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at study entry was 75.5 years; mean tumour maximal dimension at study entry was 5.6 cm. CSS was 83% and OS 63% for patients presenting without metastasis, with a mean followup of 57.5 months. The mean growth rate of those that developed metastasis during followup (n=15) was 0.98 cm/year (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-1.63) as compared to those that did not develop metastasis (n=46), with a growth rate of 0.67 cm/year (95% CI 0.34-1) (non-significant). Seven patients had evidence of metastasis at the baseline imaging of their LRM and had subsequent growth rate of 1.47 cm/year (95% CI 0.37-2.57) (non-significant)
conclusionsCompared to small renal masses, LRM are associated with higher metastasis rates and lower CSS and more rapid growth rates. Selection criteria for recommending observation of LRM in older, comorbid patients should be more conservative than for small renal masses.
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.