ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2019
Compare Fuhrman Nuclear and Chromophobe Tumor Grade on Chromophobe RCC.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment and Validation of a Machine Learning Prediction Model Based on Big Data for Predicting the Risk of Bone Metastasis in Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Application and comparison of Fuhrman nuclear grading system with the novel tumor grading system for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and its correlation with disease-specific events.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
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
backgroundChromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) has a favorable prognosis. Due to irregular nuclei and nuclear pleomorphism, chRCC has a high Fuhrman nuclear grade (FNG). The chromophobe tumor grade (CTG) is a novel three-tier grading system that has been reported to be a better prognosticator than the traditional FNG. We compared the two nuclear grading systems in terms of patients' clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND
methodWe performed this retrospective chart review of all patients with chRCC from 2000 to 2017. All pathologic features and CTG and FNG results were re-evaluated.
resultEighteen patients' records were reviewed with a mean follow-up of 70.6 months. The nuclear grading distribution was as follows: FNG 2, 56%; FNG 3, 39%; FNG 4, 5%; CTG 1, 78%; CTG 2, 17%; and CTG 3, 6%. Only one patient died. This patient had adrenal invasion, lung metastasis, sarcomatoid change and tumor necrosis, and the tumor was graded as FNG 4 and CTG 3. Overall survival was associated with both FNG and CTG.
conclusionChromophobe RCC was associated with a low rate of cancer-specific death and sarcomatoid differentiation. Both FNG and CTG were associated with overall survival.
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.