ArticleCancers2022
RCC Real-World Data: Prognostic Factors and Risk Stratification in the Immunotherapy Era.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models for Cancer Immunotherapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Baseline laboratory values and metastatic burden predict survival in addition to IMDC risk in real-world renal cell carcinoma patients treated with ipilimumab-nivolumab.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- SABR for oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy and systemic therapy in the management of tumour thrombus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Review
- Observational study on the evolution of systemic treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Southwest Finland between 2010 and 2021.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immunotherapy has transformed the landscape of treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the last decade. Currently, prognostic risk stratification is based on the model developed in the era of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (VEGFRi) by Heng in 2009. Our study aims to find the most relevant risk criteria for mRCC patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). In a retrospective cohort study, laboratory, pathology, demographic, and clinical data were retrieved from electronic medical records of consecutive mRCC patients treated with CPI in a tertiary center between 2015 and 2020. An unbiased multivariate analysis was performed to define predictive variables with a bootstrap validation step. We analyzed data on 127 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months. The median overall survival (OS) since the diagnosis of metastatic disease was 57 months. The response rate for CPI was 39%. Five risk factors were correlated with worse OS: intact primary kidney tumor (HR 2.33, p = 0.012), liver metastasis (HR 3.33, p = 0.001), <one year to treatment start (HR 1.98, p = 0.029), elevated platelets (HR 3.06, p = 0.015), and Karnofsky performance status <80% (HR = 3.42, p = 0.001). The model received a C-index of 70.7 compared with a score of 62.0 for the Heng’s model. When dividing patients into “low-risk” (0−1 risk factors) and “high-risk” (2−5 risk factors), there was good separation between the groups, with an HR of 5.9 (p < 0.0001). This study presents a new prognostic model for mRCC in the immunotherapy era with improved accuracy. Further research is needed to validate this model in larger cohorts.
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.