ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
A Retrospective, Multicenter, Long-Term Follow-Up Analysis of the Prognostic Characteristics of Recurring Non-Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma After Partial or Radical Nephrectomy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immune checkpoint profiling of B7-H proteins predicts survival and treatment response in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2026Article
- Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of Prognostic Risk Factors for One Year Recurrence in Patient With Renal Cell Carcinoma After Partial or Radical Nephrectomy: Results of Korean Renal Cancer Study Group (KRoCS) Database.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Review
- A clinical investigation of recurrence and lost follow-up after renal cell carcinoma surgery: a single-center, long-term, large cohort, retrospective study.International journal of clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Large and rapid local recurrence of clear cell renal cell carcinoma.BMJ case reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of nephrectomized patients with non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (nmRCC) and local recurrence without distant metastasis (LR group), those with metastasis without local recurrence (MET group), and those with both local recurrence and metastasis (BOTH group). This retrospective multicenter study included 464 curatively nephrectomized patients with nmRCC and disease recurrence between 2000 and 2012; the follow-up period was until 2017. After adjusting for significant clinicopathological factors using Cox proportional hazard models, CSS and OS were compared between the MET (n = 50, 10.7%), BOTH (n = 95, 20.5%), and LR (n = 319, 68.8%) groups. The CSS and OS rates were 34.7 and 6.5% after a median follow-up of 43.9 months, respectively. After adjusting for significant prognostic factors of OS and CSS, the MET group had hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.51 and 0.57 for OS and CSS (p = 0.039 and 0.103), respectively, whereas the BOTH group had HRs of 0.51 and 0.60 for OS and CSS (p < 0.05), respectively; LR was taken as a reference. The 2-year OS and CSS rates from the date of nephrectomy and disease recurrence were 86.9% and 88.9% and 63.5% and 67.8%, respectively, for the LR group; 89.5% and 89.5% and 48.06% and 52.43%, respectively, for the MET group; and 96.8% and 96.8% and 86.6% and 82.6%, respectively, for the BOTH group. Only the LR and BOTH groups had significant differences in the 2-year OS and CSS rates (p < 0.05). In conclusion, our study showed that the LR group had worse survival prognoses than any other group in nephrectomized patients with nmRCC.
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.