Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34812722›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2022

Treatment on active surveillance of small renal masses: Progression vs. preference.

Douglas Cheung, Jed Frankel, Pavinder Tut, Maria Komisarenko, Lisa Martin, Michael Jewett, Antonio Finelli

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Definitive treatment vs. active surveillance for small renal masses: Closing the preference gap.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Douglas CheungDepartments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jed FrankelDepartments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Pavinder TutDepartments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Maria KomisarenkoDepartments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lisa MartinDepartments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael JewettDepartments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Antonio FinelliDepartments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionActive surveillance (AS) of small renal masses (SRM) is increasingly recognized as a safe option. A recent U.S. study found that half of patients receiving treatment on AS were for preference, but these findings may not be generalizable to other jurisdictions and healthcare models. We aimed to investigate AS failure rates and causes among a contemporary biopsy-evaluated cohort in Canada.

methodsA retrospective review was performed of SRM patients on AS undergoing treatment at our tertiary care center (1999-2018). All patients had undergone renal biopsy and been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Demographic and clinical parameters surrounding the decision to treat were extracted from chart review. Indications for treatment were dichotomized into clinical (radiographical) progression or preference. Qualitative assessment of clinic notes confirmed treatment indication. Ethics approval was obtained.

resultsA total of 38 SRM-RCC patients who underwent treatment on AS were identified, of which 29 had been on AS ≥1 year. Most (75.9%) were male and the mean age beginning AS was 65.9±9.0 years. Most patients had clear-cell RCC with low-grade disease. Seventeen of 29 (58.6%) patients experienced clinical progression after 3.82 (2.57-7.16) years, whereas preference accounted for 12/29 (41.4%) after 2.22 (1.69-3.53) years (time-to-treatment p=0.032). The longest duration on AS was 14.2 years prior to clinical progression. No patients had metastatic progression before treatment.

conclusionsTwo-fifths of patients received treatment for preference and at a much higher rate vs. clinical progression. These findings suggest a clinical gap where effective patient counselling prior to and during AS may improve adherence.

Identifiers

PMID34812722
PMCPMC9054329
OpenAlexW3215838825

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.