Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38814376›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Pulmonary lesion after surgery for renal cancer: progression or new primary?

Daniele Cignoli, Alessandro Bandiera, Giuseppe Rosiello, Riccardo Castorina, Chiara Re, Francesco Cei, Giacomo Musso, Federico Belladelli, Massimo Freschi, Roberta Lucianò and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Daniele CignoliUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. cignoli.daniele@hsr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7873-7318
Alessandro BandieraUnit of Thoracic Surgery, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe RosielloUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Riccardo CastorinaUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Chiara ReUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Francesco CeiUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Giacomo MussoUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Federico BelladelliUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Massimo FreschiUnit of Anatomic Pathology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Roberta LucianòUnit of Anatomic Pathology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Daniele RaggiUnit of Medical Oncology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Giampiero NegriUnit of Thoracic Surgery, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Andrea NecchiUnit of Medical Oncology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Andrea SaloniaUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Francesco MontorsiUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro LarcherUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Umberto CapitanioUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate clinical and radiological differences between kidney metastases to the lung (RCCM +) and metachronous lung cancer (LC) detected during follow-up in patients surgically treated for Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC).

methodscM0 surgically-treated RCC who harbored a pulmonary mass during follow-up were retrospectively scrutinized. Univariate logistic regression assessed predictive features for differentiating between LC and RCCM + . Multivariable analyses (MVA) were fitted to predict factors that could influence time between detection and histological diagnosis of the pulmonary mass, and how this interval could impact on survivals.

results87% had RCCM + and 13% had LC. LC were more likely to have smoking history (75% vs. 29%, p < 0.001) and less aggressive RCC features (cT1-2: 94% vs. 65%, p = 0.01; pT1-2: 88% vs. 41%, p = 0.02; G1-2: 88% vs. 37%, p < 0.001). The median interval between RCC surgery and lung mass detection was longer between LC (55 months [32.8-107.2] vs. 20 months [9.0-45.0], p = 0.01). RCCM + had a higher likelihood of multiple (3[1-4] vs. 1[1-1], p < 0.001) and bilateral (51% vs. 6%, p = 0.002) pulmonary nodules, whereas LC usually presented with a solitary pulmonary nodule, less than 20 mm. Univariate analyses revealed that smoking history (OR:0.79; 95% CI 0.70-0.89; p < 0.001) and interval between RCC surgery and lung mass detection (OR:0.99; 95% CI 0.97-1.00; p = 0.002) predicted a higher risk of LC. Conversely, size (OR:1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04; p = 0.003), clinical stage (OR:1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.23; p < 0.001), pathological stage (OR:1.14; 95% CI 1.07-1.22; p < 0.001), grade (OR:1.15; 95% CI 1.07-1.23; p < 0.001), presence of necrosis (OR:1.17; 95% CI 1.04-1.32; p = 0.01), and lymphovascular invasion (OR:1.18; 95% CI 1.01-1.37; p = 0.03) of primary RCC predicted a higher risk of RCCM + . Furthermore, number (OR:1.08; 95% CI 1.04-1.12; p < 0.001) and bilaterality (OR:1.23; 95% CI 1.09-1.38; p < 0.001) of pulmonary lesions predicted a higher risk of RCCM + . Survival analysis showed a median second PFS of 10.9 years (95% CI 3.3-not reached) for LC and a 3.8 years (95% CI 3.2-8.4) for RCCM + . The median OS time was 6.5 years (95% CI 4.4-not reached) for LC and 6 years (95% CI 4.3-11.6) for RCCM + .

conclusionsSmoking history, primary grade and stage of RCC, interval between RCC surgery and lung mass detection, and number of pulmonary lesions appear to be the most valuable predictors for differentiating new primary lung cancer from RCC progression.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellDisease ProgressionKidney NeoplasmsLung NeoplasmsNeoplasms, Second PrimaryAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNephrectomyRetrospective StudiesKidney cancerLung cancerMetastasisProgressionRenal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

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.