Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31093717›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2019

[Renal cell carcinoma diagnosis and prognosis within the context of the WHO classification 2016].

A Zimpfer, Ä Glass, H Zettl, M Maruschke, O W Hakenberg, A Erbersdobler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 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
  11. Review
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

6 authors.

A ZimpferInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Strempelstr. 14, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland. annette.zimpfer@med.uni-rostock.de.
Ä GlassInstitut für Biostatistik und Informatik in Medizin und Altersforschung, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 8, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
H ZettlKlinisches Krebsregister, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Südring 75, 18059, Rostock, Deutschland.
M MaruschkeKlinik für Urologie, HELIOS Hanseklinikum Stralsund, Große Parower Str. 47-53, 18435, Stralsund, Deutschland.
O W HakenbergUrologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 8, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
A ErbersdoblerInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Strempelstr. 14, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHistological classification of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has become more and more important for clinical management, but relatively few is known regarding the swiftness with which the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of RCC was adopted in the daily routine diagnostics.

aimTo retrospectively review the histological diagnosis of RCC within the context of 2016 WHO classification followed by survival analysis. MATERIAL AND

methodsRetrospective register based analysis of RCC diagnosis between 1998 and 2017 and survival analysis.

results1440 RCC cases were registered between 1998 and 1917. According to 2016 WHO classification, 77.7% clear cell RCC and 22.3% non-clear cell RCC were diagnosed. A total of 37 rare subtypes were recorded, among those 1% MiT family translocation RCC, 0.35% acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, 0.35% multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential, 0.35% collecting duct carcinoma, 0.3% mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma, 0.1% clear cell papillary RCC and 0.1% RCC with (angio)leiomyomatous stroma. Cox regression analysis showed significant different overall survival and progression-free survival between the histological subtypes. DISCUSSION: The complexity of the 2016 WHO classification of RCC put high demands on histopathological diagnostics. At University Medicine Center Rostock morphological distinct RCC entities have been mostly diagnosed by conventional means via hematoxillin and eosin stained slides, but beyond immunohistochemistry additionally molecular techniques were established. The histologic subtyping of RCC according to 2016 WHO classification has prognostic significance and might have predictive significance for unique therapeutic approaches.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellHumansImmunohistochemistryKidneyKidney NeoplasmsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesWorld Health Organization2016 WHO classificationHistologyPrognosisRCC subtypingRenal cell carcinoma

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.