ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2024
A comparative analysis of fear of cancer recurrence in patients with small renal masses: Active surveillance versus cryoablation.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 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.
- Percutaneous thermal ablation for renal cell carcinoma: a comprehensive review of current evidence and future directions.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) in patients diagnosed with a small renal mass (SRM) and managed with either active surveillance (AS) or minimal invasive renal cryoablation (CA). PATIENTS/MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 398 patients with SRMs (263 AS and 135 CA patients) were retrospectively identified across three institutions and invited to complete the Fear of Cancer Recurrence-Short Form (FCRI-SF) questionnaire.
resultsNo statistically significant differences in FCRI-SF score were observed between the AS (mean = 10.9, standard deviation [SD] = 6.9) and CA (mean = 10.2, SD = 7.2) (p = 0.559) patients, with the mean scores of both groups being below the suggested clinically significant cut-off of 16. A total of 25% of AS and 28% of CA patients reported sub-clinical or clinical levels of FCR (FCRI-SF score > 16). Within the AS group, a weak negative association between FCR severity and age was observed (r = -0.23, p = 0.006), and a statistically significant difference in FCRI-SF score between patients aged more or less than 73 years (p = 0.009).
interpretationFCR levels were comparable between AS and CA patients, suggesting that treatment decisions should prioritise clinical factors. Up to 28% of AS and CA patients report clinically significant FCR, highlighting the importance of considering the possibility of FCR, especially in younger patients.
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.