ArticleBMJ open2023
Screening for renal cell carcinoma in renal transplant recipients: a single-centre retrospective study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- De Novo Renal Cell Carcinoma in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Incidence, Outcomes, and Therapeutic Challenges.Cancers · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) screening in renal transplant (RT) recipients.
designSingle-centre retrospective study. SETTING AND
participants1998 RT recipients who underwent RT at Memorial Hermann Hospital (MHH) Texas Medical Center (TMC) between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 were included and we identified 16 patients (0.8%) with RCC. An additional four patients with RCC who underwent RT elsewhere but received follow-up at MHH TMC were also included. Subject races included white (20%), black (50%), Hispanic (20%) and Asian (10%). OUTCOME MEASURES: The RCC stage at diagnosis and outcomes were compared between patients who were screening versus those who were not.
resultsWe identified a total of 20 patients with post-RT RCC, 75% of whom were men. The median age at diagnosis was 56 years. RCC histologies included clear cell (75%), papillary (20%) and chromophobe (5%). Patients with post-RT RCC who had screening (n=12) underwent ultrasound or CT annually or every 2 years, whereas eight patients had no screening. All 12 patients who had screening had early-stage disease at diagnosis (stage I (n=11) or stage II (n=1)) and were cured by nephrectomy (n=10) or cryotherapy (n=2). In patients who had no screening, three (37.5%) had stage IV RCC at diagnosis and all of whom died of metastatic disease. There was a statistically significant difference in RCC-specific survival in patients who were screened (p=0.01) compared with those who were not screened.
conclusionAll RT recipients who had RCC diagnosed based on screening had early-stage disease and there were no RCC-related deaths. Screening is an effective intervention in RT recipients to reduce RCC-related mortality.
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.