ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Comparison of outcomes of radical and partial nephrectomy for sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: analysis of the national cancer database.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors for recurrence following robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN): a single-center retrospective study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma: Biological Features and Therapeutic Implications-A Narrative Review.Current urology reports · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare outcomes of radical (RN) and partial nephrectomy (PN) in Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma (sRCC) utilizing a large national cohort. As RN is the reference standard for localized RCC with clinically aggressive features, PN in sRCC has been seldom studied.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2019 for patients who underwent PN and RN for sRCC (T1-T3N0-N1M0). We performed multivariable analyses (MVA) to determine factors associated with PN and all-cause mortality (ACM), and Kaplan-Meier Analysis (KMA) for overall survival (OS) in Charlson 0 patients who underwent PN vs. RN according to clinical stage.
resultsThe cohort consisted of 5,265 patients [RN 4,582 (87.0%)/PN 683 (13.0%)]. Increased odds of receiving PN was associated with papillary RCC (OR = 1.69, p = 0.015); inversely with increasing age (OR = 0.99, p = 0.004), cT2-cT3 (OR = 0.23, p < 0.001), and cN1 (OR = 0.2, p < 0.001). Worsened ACM was associated with positive margins (HR = 1.59, p < 0.001), male (HR = 1.1, p = 0.044), Charlson [Formula: see text]2 (HR = 1.47, p < 0.001), cT2-cT3 (HR 1.17-1.39, p < 0.001-0.035), and cN1 (HR = 1.59, p < 0.001). Improved ACM was noted with PN (HR = 0.64, p < 0.001), increasing household income (HR = 0.77-0.79, p < 0.001), and private insurance (HR = 0.80, p = 0.018). KMA showed PN had improved 5-year OS compared to RN in cT1 (86.5% vs. 63.2%, p < 0.001), and cT3 (61.0% vs. 44.0% p < 0.001), but not cT2 (p = 0.67).
conclusionIn select patients, PN with negative margins may not compromise outcomes and may provide benefit when indicated. Patients with private insurance and highest income experienced improved survival suggesting disparity in care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39240329What 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.