Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37064092›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Proposal for a Two-Tier Re-classification of Stage IV/M1 domain of Renal Cell Carcinoma into M1 ("Oligometastatic") and M2 ("Polymetastatic") subdomains: Analysis of the Registry for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (REMARCC).

Margaret F Meagher, Maria C Mir, Andrea Minervini, Maximilian Kriegmair, Matthias Heck, Francesco Porpiglia, Siska Van Bruwaene, Estefania Linares, Vital Hevia, Maurizio D'Anna and 22 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

32 authors.

Margaret F MeagherDepartment of Urology, University of California (UC) San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Maria C MirDepartment of Urology, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain.
Andrea MinerviniDepartment of Urology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Maximilian KriegmairDepartment of Urology, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Matthias HeckDepartment of Urology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Francesco PorpigliaDepartment of Urology, University of Turin-San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Italy.
Siska Van BruwaeneDepartment of Urology, AZ Groeninge, Kortrijk, Belgium.
Estefania LinaresDepartment of Urology, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
Vital HeviaDepartment of Urology, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
Maurizio D'AnnaDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Carrer de Villarroel, Barcelona, Spain.
Alessandro VecciaDepartment of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Medical Center, Richmond, VA, United States.
Eduard RousselDepartment of Urology, UK Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Francesco ClapsDepartment of Urology, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Carlotta PalumboDepartment of Urology, Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Michele MarchioniDepartment of Urology, University "G. d'Annunzio" Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Jonathan AfariDepartment of Urology, University of California (UC) San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Cesare SaittaDepartment of Urology, University of California (UC) San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Franklin LiuDepartment of Urology, University of California (UC) San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Jose RubioDepartment of Urology, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain.
Riccardo CampiDepartment of Urology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Andrea MariDepartment of Urology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Thomas AmielDepartment of Urology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Enrico CheccucciDepartment of Urology, University of Turin-San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Italy.
Mireia MusqueraDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Carrer de Villarroel, Barcelona, Spain.
Georgi GuruliDepartment of Urology, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Nicola PavanDepartment of Urology, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Maarten AlbersenDepartment of Urology, UK Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Tobias KlatteDepartment of Urology, Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Riccardo AutorinoDepartment of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Medical Center, Richmond, VA, United States.
Rana R McKayDepartment of Urology, University of California (UC) San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Ithaar H DerweeshDepartment of Urology, University of California (UC) San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: We hypothesized that two-tier re-classification of the "M" (metastasis) domain of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging of Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) may improve staging accuracy than the current monolithic classification, as advancements in the understanding of tumor biology have led to increased recognition of the heterogeneous potential of metastatic RCC (mRCC). Methods: Multicenter retrospective analysis of patients from the REMARCC (REgistry of MetAstatic RCC) database. Patients were stratified by number of metastases into two groups, M1 (≤3, "Oligometastatic") and M2 (>3, "Polymetastatic"). Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were cancer-specific survival (CSS). Cox-regression and Kaplan-Meier (KMA) analysis were utilized for outcomes, and receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC) was utilized to assess diagnostic accuracy compared to current "M" staging. Results: 429 patients were stratified into proposed M1 and M2 groups (M1 = 286/M2 = 143; median follow-up 19.2 months). Cox-regression revealed M2 classification as an independent risk factor for worsened all-cause mortality (HR=1.67, p=0.001) and cancer-specific mortality (HR=1.74, p<0.001). Comparing M1-oligometastatic vs. M2-polymetastatic groups, KMA revealed significantly higher 5-year OS (36% vs. 21%, p<0.001) and 5-year CSS (39% vs. 17%, p<0.001). ROC analyses comparing OS and CSS, for M1/M2 reclassification versus unitary M designation currently in use demonstrated improved c-index for OS (M1/M2 0.635 vs. unitary M 0.500) and CSS (M1/M2 0.627 vs. unitary M 0.500). Conclusion: Subclassification of Stage "M" domain of mRCC into two clinical substage categories based on metastatic burden corresponds to distinctive tumor groups whose oncological potential varies significantly and result in improved predictive capability compared to current staging.

Indexed as

carcinoma, renal cellneoplasm metastasisneoplasm stagingnephrectomysurvival analysisTNM staging system

Identifiers

PMID37064092
PMCPMC10092360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.