Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37334025›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2023

Variation in the management of cT1 renal cancer by surgical hospital volume: A nationwide study.

H Yildirim, M S Schuurman, C V Widdershoven, B W Lagerveld, L van den Brink, A E C Ruiter, H P Beerlage, R J A van Moorselaar, N M Graafland, A Bex and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 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

12 authors.

H YildirimDepartment of Research and Development Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation Utrecht The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0965-7968
M S SchuurmanDepartment of Research and Development Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation Utrecht The Netherlands.
C V WiddershovenDepartment of Urology Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.
B W LagerveldDepartment of Urology OLVG Amsterdam The Netherlands.
L van den BrinkDepartment of Urology Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.
A E C RuiterDepartment of Urology OLVG Amsterdam The Netherlands.
H P BeerlageDepartment of Urology Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.
R J A van MoorselaarDepartment of Urology Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.
N M GraaflandDepartment of Urology The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital Amsterdam The Netherlands.
A BexDepartment of Urology The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital Amsterdam The Netherlands.
K K H AbenDepartment of Research and Development Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation Utrecht The Netherlands.
P J ZondervanDepartment of Urology Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To analyse variation in clinical management of cT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the Netherlands related to surgical hospital volume (HV). Materials and methods: Patients diagnosed with cT1 RCC during 2014-2020 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient and tumour characteristics were retrieved. Hospitals performing kidney cancer surgery were categorised by annual HV as low (HV < 25), medium (HV = 25-49) and high (HV > 50). Trends over time in nephron-sparing strategies for cT1a and cT1b were evaluated. Patient, tumour and treatment characteristics of (partial) nephrectomies were compared by HV. Variation in applied treatment was studied by HV. Results: Between 2014 and 2020, 10 964 patients were diagnosed with cT1 RCC. Over time, a clear increase in nephron-sparing management was observed. The majority of cT1a underwent a partial nephrectomy (PN), although less PNs were applied over time (from 48% in 2014 to 41% in 2020). Active surveillance (AS) was increasingly applied (from 18% to 32%). For cT1a, 85% received nephron-sparing management in all HV categories, either with AS, PN or focal therapy (FT). For T1b, radical nephrectomy (RN) remained the most common treatment (from 57% to 50%). Patients in high-volume hospitals underwent more often PN (35%) for T1b compared with medium HV (28%) and low HV (19%). Conclusion: HV is related to variation in the management of cT1 RCC in the Netherlands. The EAU guidelines have recommended PN as preferred treatment for cT1 RCC. In most patients with cT1a, nephron-sparing management was applied in all HV categories, although differences in applied strategy were found and PN was more frequently used in high HV. For T1b, high HV was associated with less appliance of RN, whereas PN was increasingly used. Therefore, closer guideline adherence was found in high-volume hospitals.

Indexed as

cT1a renal cancerhospital volumerenal cell carcinomasurgical volumevolume standards

Identifiers

PMID37334025
PMCPMC10268570

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.