ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2024
External validation of a four-tiered grading system for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.
Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to validate the prognostic value of a four-tiered grading system recently proposed by Avulova et al. and to explore the prognostic ability of another four-tiered classification grading system in which there is a separate Grade 3 for tumor necrosis. Grading of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) by the Fuhrman system is not feasible because of the inherent nuclear atypia in ChRCC. We collected relevant data of 263 patients with ChRCC who had undergone surgery in our hospital from 2008 to 2020. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the survival rate and Cox proportional hazard regression models to assess associations with cancer-specific survival and distant metastasis-free survival by hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Ten patients died from ChRCC, and 12 developed metastases. The 5 year CSS rates were 95.9%. Grades 2 (HR = 10.9; CI 1.11-106.4; P = 0.04), 3 (HR = 33.6, CI 3.32-339.1; P = 0.003), and 4 (HR = 417.4, CI 35.0-4976.2; P < 0.001) in a four-tiered grading system were significantly associated with CSS in a multivariate setting. However, the difference in CSS between Grades 2 and 3 was not significant (HR = 2.14, 95% CI 0.43-10.63; P = 0.35). The HRs of the associations between an exploratory grading system that includes a separate Grade 3 for tumor necrosis and CSS were as follows: Grade 2, 10.2 (CI 1.06-97.9, P = 0.045); Grade 3, 11.4 (CI 1.18-109.6, P = 0.04); and Grade 4, 267.9 (CI 27.6-2603.3, P < 0.001). Similarly, Grades 2 and 3 did not differ significantly. The four-tiered grading system studied is useful for predicting death from ChRCC and metastasis. However, Grade 3 did not more accurately predict risk of death and metastasis than did Grade 2. This was also true for the novel exploratory grading system that classifies tumors with necrosis into a separate Grade 3.
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.