Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30937569›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Partial versus radical nephrectomy in very elderly patients: a propensity score analysis of surgical, functional and oncologic outcomes (RESURGE project).

Maria C Mir, Nicola Pavan, Umberto Capitanio, Alessandro Antonelli, Ithaar Derweesh, Oscar Rodriguez-Faba, Estefania Linares, Toshio Takagi, Koon H Rha, Christian Fiori and 43 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

53 authors.

Maria C MirDepartment of Urology, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain.
Nicola PavanUrology Clinic, Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Science, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Umberto CapitanioUnit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Ithaar DerweeshDepartment of Urology, UCSD, San Diego, CA, USA.
Oscar Rodriguez-FabaDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Estefania LinaresDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
Toshio TakagiDepartment of Urology, Kidney Center, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Koon H RhaDepartment of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Christian FioriDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Turin-San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Tobias MaurerDepartment of Urology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Chao ZangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Shangahai, China.
Alexandre MottrieORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Paolo UmariORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Jean-Alexandre LongDepartment of Urology, University of Grenoble, Grenoble, France.
Gaelle FiardDepartment of Urology, University of Grenoble, Grenoble, France.
Cosimo De NunzioDepartment of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Andrea TubaroDepartment of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Andrew T TraceyDivision of Urology, VCU Health, 1200 East Broad st, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA.
Matteo FerroDepartment of Urology, European Oncology Institute, Milan, Italy.
Ottavio De CobelliDepartment of Urology, European Oncology Institute, Milan, Italy.
Salvatore MicaliDepartment of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Luigi BevilacquaDepartment of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
João TorresCUF Urology and University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Luigi SchipsDivision of Urology, ASL, Abruzzo 2, Chieti, Italy.
Roberto CastellucciDivision of Urology, ASL, Abruzzo 2, Chieti, Italy.
Ryan DobbsUrology, UCI, Chicago, IL, USA.
Giuseppe QuartoDivision of Urology, IRCCS Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy.
Pierluigi BoveDepartment of Urology, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy.
Antonio CeliaDepartment of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa, Italy.
Bernardino De ConcilioDepartment of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa, Italy.
Carlo TrombettaUrology Clinic, Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Science, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Tommaso SilvestriUrology Clinic, Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Science, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Alessandro LarcherUnit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Francesco MontorsiUnit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Carlotta PalumboDepartment of Urology, Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Maria FurlanDepartment of Urology, Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Ahmet BindayiDepartment of Urology, UCSD, San Diego, CA, USA.
Zachary HamiltonDepartment of Urology, UCSD, San Diego, CA, USA.
Alberto BredaDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Joan PalouDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Alfredo AguileraDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
Kazunari TanabeDepartment of Urology, Kidney Center, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Ali RaheemDepartment of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Thomas AmielDepartment of Urology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Bo YangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Shangahai, China.
Estevão LimaCUF Urology and University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Simone CrivellaroUrology, UCI, Chicago, IL, USA.
Sisto PerdonaDivision of Urology, IRCCS Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy.
Caterina GregorioDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Giulia BarbatiBiostatistics Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Francesco PorpigliaDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Turin-San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Riccardo AutorinoDivision of Urology, VCU Health, 1200 East Broad st, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA. ricautor@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-7725

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the outcomes of PN to those of RN in very elderly patients treated for clinically localized renal tumor. PATIENTS AND

methodsA purpose-built multi-institutional international database (RESURGE project) was used for this retrospective analysis. Patients over 75 years old and surgically treated for a suspicious of localized renal with either PN or RN were included in this database. Surgical, renal function and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity scores for the predicted probability to receive PN in each patient were estimated by logistic regression models. Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to determine the relative change in hazard associated with PN vs RN on overall mortality (OM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM).

resultsA total of 613 patients who underwent RN were successfully matched with 613 controls who underwent PN. Higher overall complication rate was recorded in the PN group (33% vs 25%; p = 0.01). Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 35 months (interquartile range [IQR] 13-63 months). There was a significant difference between RN and PN in median decline of eGFR (39% vs 17%; p < 0.01). PN was not correlated with OM (HR = 0.71; p = 0.56), OCM (HR = 0.74; p = 0.5), and showed a protective trend for CSM (HR = 0.19; p = 0.05). PN was found to be a protective factor for surgical CKD (HR = 0.28; p < 0.01) and worsening of eGFR in patients with baseline CKD. Retrospective design represents a limitation of this analysis.

conclusionsAdoption of PN in very elderly patients with localized renal tumor does not compromise oncological outcomes, and it allows better functional preservation at mid-term (3-year) follow-up, relative to RN. Whether this functional benefit translates into a survival benefit remains to be determined.

Indexed as

Neoplasm StagingPropensity ScoreAgedAge FactorsAsiaCarcinoma, Renal CellEuropeFemaleGlomerular Filtration RateHumansIncidenceKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNephrectomyNorth AmericaElderlyKidney cancerNephrectomyPartial nephrectomy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.