Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35503118›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2022

Surgical margins after partial nephrectomy as prognostic factor for the risk of local recurrence in pT1 RCC: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Michaël M E L Henderickx, Suraj V Baldew, Lorenzo Marconi, Marcel D van Dijk, Faridi S van Etten-Jamaludin, Brunolf W Lagerveld, Axel Bex, Patricia J Zondervan

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The outcomes of partial nephrectomy - considerations that contribute to positive surgical margins.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Michaël M E L Henderickx *Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.m.henderickx@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8277-0046
Suraj V Baldew *Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lorenzo MarconiDepartment of Urology, Coimbra University Hospital, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5376-466X
Marcel D van DijkFaculty of Medicine (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Faridi S van Etten-JamaludinResearch Support, Medical Library, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1452-1769
Brunolf W LagerveldDepartment of Urology, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3841-6805
Axel Bex *The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8499-2662
Patricia J Zondervan *Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0812-078X
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLOLVG · NLRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Coimbra · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically review the published literature on surgical margins as a risk factor for local recurrence (LR) in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) for pT1 renal cell carcinomas (RCC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search of relevant databases (MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library) was performed according to the PRISMA criteria up to February 2022. The hypothesis was developed using the PPO method (Patients = patients with pT1 RCC undergoing PN, Prognostic factor = positive surgical margins (PSM) detected on final pathology versus negative surgical margins (NSM) and Outcome = LR diagnosed on follow-up imaging). The primary outcome was the rate of PSM and LR. The risk of bias was assessed by the QUIPS tool. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After assessing 1525 abstracts and 409 full-text articles, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of PSM ranged between 0 and 34.3%. In these patients with PSM, LR varied between 0 and 9.1%, whereas only 0-1.5% of LR were found in the NSM-group. The calculated odds ratio (95% confident intervals) varied between 0.04 [0.00-0.79] and 0.27 [0.01-4.76] and was statistically significant in two studies (0.14 [0.02-0.80] and 0.04 [0.00-0.79]). The quality analysis of the included studies resulted in an overall intermediate to high risk of bias and the level of evidence was overall very low. A meta-analysis was considered unsuitable due to the high heterogeneity between the included studies.

conclusionPSM after PN in patients with pT1 RCC is associated with a higher risk of LR. However, the evidence has significant limitations and caution should be taken with the interpretation of this data.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsHumansMargins of ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNephrectomyPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLocal recurrencePartial nephrectomyPositive surgical marginPrognostic factorpT1 renal cell carcinomaSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35503118
PMCPMC9427912
OpenAlexW4225370628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.