Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35633831›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2022

Benefit and Harm of Active Surveillance for Biopsy-proven Renal Oncocytoma: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.

Michael Baboudjian, Daniel Moser, Takafumi Yanagisawa, Bastien Gondran-Tellier, Eva M Compérat, Damien Ambrosetti, Laurent Daniel, Cyrille Bastide, Shahrokh F Shariat, Eric Lechevallier and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Michael BaboudjianDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Conception University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Daniel MoserDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Takafumi YanagisawaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Bastien Gondran-TellierDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Conception University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Eva M CompératDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Damien AmbrosettiDepartment of Pathology, CHU Nice, University of Côte d'Azur, Nice, France.
Laurent DanielDepartment of Pathology, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, La Timone University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Cyrille BastideDepartment of Urology, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, North University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Eric LechevallierDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Conception University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Pietro DianaDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Alberto BredaDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Benjamin PradereDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Romain BoissierDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Conception University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Aix-Marseille Université · FRComprehensive Cancer Center Vienna · ATMedical University of Vienna · ATPuigvert Foundation · ESUniversitat de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: Active surveillance (AS) of biopsy-proven renal oncocytomas may reduce overtreatment. However, on biopsy, the risk of misdiagnosis owing principally to entities with peculiar hybrids and overlap morphology, and phenotypes argues for early intervention. Objective: To assess the benefit and harm of AS in biopsy-proven renal oncocytoma. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from September 26 up to October 2021, for studies that analyzed the outcomes of AS in patients with biopsy-proven renal oncocytoma. Evidence synthesis: A total of ten studies with 633 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. After a median follow-up of 34.5 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.6-38.4), the overall definitive treatment rate from AS to definitive treatment was 17.3% ( Conclusions: Annual tumor growth of biopsy-proven renal oncocytoma is low. AS is oncologically safe, with favorable compliance of patients. Crossover to definitive treatment revealed a strong concordance between biopsy and final pathology. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of AS are needed. Patient summary: In this study, we examined the benefit and harm of active surveillance (AS) in biopsy-proven oncocytoma. Based on the available data, AS appears oncologically safe and may represent a promising alternative to immediate treatment. Patients should be included in AS decision discussions.

Indexed as

BiopsyOncocytomaRenalReviewSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID35633831
PMCPMC9130085
OpenAlexW4280498084

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.