Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35506551›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2022

Locoregional recurrence after nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma: Feasibility and outcomes of different treatment modalities.

Yang Liu, Xinyue Zhang, Huali Ma, Li Tian, Lixin Mai, Wen Long, Zhiling Zhang, Hui Han, Fangjian Zhou, Pei Dong and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yang LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9167-514X
Xinyue ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Huali MaDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Li TianDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Lixin MaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Wen LongDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Zhiling ZhangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Hui HanDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Fangjian ZhouDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Pei DongDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9749-493X
Liru HeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7192-0205
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLocoregional recurrence after nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rare with diverse manifestations. The selection criteria and efficacy of different treatments are unanswered. The objective was to compare different treatment modalities and present data on stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for recurrent RCC. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with locoregional recurrence after nephrectomy without distant metastasis were identified from institutional big data intelligence platform between 2001 and 2020. Patients receiving local therapy (surgery or SBRT) or systemic therapy alone (targeted therapy or PD-1 inhibitors) were divided into two groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method, Cox regression model. Patients were matched with propensity score matching.

resultsAmong 106 patients, 33 (31.1%) received systemic therapy alone and 73 (68.9%) received local therapy. Local therapy was surgery in 34 patients (32.1%) and SBRT in 39 (36.8%) patients. Patients treated with systemic therapy alone had more non-clear cell type (p = 0.044), more advanced T stage (p = 0.006), higher number (p = 0.043) but smaller size of lesions (p = 0.042). Patients receiving local therapy had significantly longer PFS than systemic therapy (19.7 vs. 7.5 months, p = 0.001). After matching, the PFS in the local therapy group remained higher (23.9 vs. 7.5 months, p = 0.001). The 2-year OS of the local therapy group and systemic therapy group was 91.6% and 71.8%, respectively (p = 0.084). Local therapy was associated with better PFS (HR 0.37; p = 0.0003) and OS (HR 0.23; p = 0.002) in multivariate analysis. Grade 2 or higher toxicities related to local therapy occurred in nine patients.

conclusionsLocal therapy could delay disease progression compared with systemic therapy alone. SBRT is safe and effective for locally recurrent RCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsRadiosurgeryHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNephrectomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomerecurrencerenal cell carcinomastereotactic body radiotherapysurgerysystemic therapy

Identifiers

PMID35506551
PMCPMC9741970
OpenAlexW4225401976

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.