Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31677114›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2020

Comparison of survival and renal function between partial and radical laparoscopic nephrectomy for T1b renal cell carcinoma.

Feiya Yang, Qiang Zhou, Nianzeng Xing

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04933604 (Comparison of Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy in Patients With High-Complexity Renal Tumors), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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.

NCT04933604 completednot on this map

Comparison of Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy in Patients With High-Complexity Renal Tumors: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

TypeobservationalSponsorSamsun Liv HospitalRan2019 to 2021Enrolled78ConditionsRenal Cancer, Renal Neoplasm, Renal Cell Carcinoma, SurgeryArmslaparoscopic partial nephrectomy, Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Feiya YangDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17, Panjiayuan South Li, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China.
Qiang ZhouDepartment of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, People's Republic of China.
Nianzeng XingDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17, Panjiayuan South Li, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China. xingnianzeng@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2696-5279
Capital Medical University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

Capital Science and Technology Leading Talent Project Z181100006318007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePartial nephrectomy has been persuaded as a widely accepted surgical procedure for T1a (≤ 4 cm) renal tumors. However, when treating T1b (4-7 cm) renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the "optimal" method of surgery is still debatable. The aim of the research is to evaluate the long-term oncological and renal functional outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for patients with T1b RCC. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom March 1, 2003 to July 1, 2016, 331 patients were included in the current study. Patients presented with unilateral T1b RCC and underwent either LPN (n = 177) or LRN (n = 154). Relevant clinical data including follow-ups were acquired from patients.

resultsThe operation time of the LPN group patients was longer than that of LRN group (94.3 min vs 88.3 min, p = 0.021) and LPN group patients required shorter stays in hospital (11.5 days vs. 13.4 days, p = 0.009). Contrast to LRN, level of eGFR was superior in LPN at the postoperative time of 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months (all p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests showed that patients undergoing LPN had a much higher overall survival (OS) (p = 0.007), cancer-specific survival (CSS) (p = 0.006) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) (p = 0.008) than those receiving LRN. In comparison with the LRN group, multivariable Cox analysis indicated that patients of the LPN group had a 1.9-fold OS, 2.9-fold CSS and 2.3-fold MFS.

conclusionsFor patients with T1b RCC, our findings revealed that OS, CSS and MFS are superior in patients receiving LPN than those treated with LRN. With the benefit of preserving renal function of LPN, which leads a less incidence risk of other systematic diseases, LPN may be the preferred option when condition permits for cases involving T1b RCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellFemaleHumansKidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedNephrectomyPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomePartial nephrectomyRadical nephrectomyRenal functionSurvivalT1b renal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID31677114
PMCPMC11804382
OpenAlexW2987001229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.