ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2019
Adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: the perspective of urologists.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- MR-Guided Microwave Ablation in T1 Renal Cell Carcinoma: Initial Results in Clinical Routine.BioMed research international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil recently, there was no approved adjuvant therapy (AT) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) unless sunitinib was approved in the US. We evaluated clinical opinion and estimated use regarding different treatment options and patient selection of AT in RCC patients based on current scientific data and individual experience in Germany.
methodsWe conducted an anonymous survey during a national urology conference in 01/2017. Answers of 157 urologists treating RCC patients could be included. Questions were related to practice setting, treatment of RCC, follow-up strategy, physicians' personal opinion and individually different important parameters regarding S-TRAC and ASSURE-trial.
results82% were office based. 67% were located in larger cities. 83% reported that nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) was performed in tumors with diameter < 4 cm. Follow-up was done mainly in concordance with guideline recommendations. 68% treated an average of 2.9 patients/year with systemic therapy. Therapy was predominantly advocated using sunitinib (94%). Urologists were informed about S-TRAC and ASSURE-trial. For 47%, reported hazard ratio is the most important parameter to understand trial results followed by overall survival (OS) in 46%, disease-free survival in 38%, and results of other trials in 34%. The most convincing parameter to decide on AT is OS (69%). 62% placed their confidence in ASSURE over STRAC-trial. 44% would use AT for 12 months. Nodal involvement was the most common denominator for use of AT. 82% favor sunitinib as AT.
conclusionsA minority of urologists would use AT and are more confident in ASSURE-trial. Reluctance of prescribing AT mainly is based on lack of OS data and conflicting trial results.
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.