ArticleWorld journal of urology2022
Contemporary vs historical survival rates in metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma according to race/ethnicity.
Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSystemic therapies (ST) improved contemporary survival rates, relative to historical in clear cell metastatic renal carcinoma (ccmRCC) patients. The magnitude of this improvement is unknown according to race/ethnicity.
methodsWithin the SEER registry (2000-2017), ccmRCC patients were stratified according to race/ethnicity (Caucasian, Hispanic, African American, Asian) and historical (2000-2009) vs contemporary (2010-2017) years of diagnosis. Competing risks regression (CRR) with adjustment for other-cause mortality and Poisson smoothed cumulative incidence plots addressed cancer-specific mortality (CSM).
resultsOf 10,141 mRCC patients, 4316 (43%) vs 5825 (57%) were diagnosed in historical vs contemporary era. Of 4316 historical patients, 3203 (74%) vs 593 (14%) vs 293 (7%) vs 227 (5%) were Caucasian, Hispanic, African American and Asian. Of 5825 contemporary patients, 4124 (71%) vs 977 (17%) vs 362 (6%) vs 362 (6%) were Caucasian, Hispanic, African American and Asian. Between 2000 and 2017, ST rates ranged from 12 to 57% in Caucasians, 2 to 57% in Hispanics, 33 to 50% in African Americans, 17 to 70% in Asians and universally increased toward a plateau in 2010. In Caucasians, CSM decreased from 80 to 74% vs 79 to 74% in Hispanics vs 79 to 77% in African Americans, but not in Asians (67-73%). Nonetheless, these rates translated into independent predictor status of contemporary years of diagnosis in all race/ethnicity groups: CSM hazard ratios of 0.75, 0.75, 0.73 and 0.80 in, respectively, Caucasian, Hispanic, African American and Asian.
conclusionsIn all race/ethnicity groups, contemporary ST rates increased and improved CSM rates have also been recorded.
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.