ReviewTranslational cancer research2024
Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma narrative review: where we are in 2024.
Review in Translational cancer research, 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.
- [Treatment options in rare urological tumors: potential of molecular tumor boards].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Advances in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have lagged behind clear cell RCC due to the heterogeneity and relative rarity of the disease. However, more advanced molecular and genetic testing has allowed us to gain a more detailed and nuanced appreciation of these malignancies. This has laid the foundation for the identification of the distinct mutational and molecular patterns such as succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-deficient RCC, fumarate hydratase (FH)-deficient RCC, and translocation RCC, so that clinicians can create a more personalized approach to their clinical management. Particularly for the rare non-papillary RCC variant histologies, clinical trial representation is lacking. In the discussed studies, no histology enrolled more than 29 patients of any particular RCC aside from Papillary. As such, evidence-based management decisions can be challenging to make for this patient population. Methods: We have collected the most up-to-date available evidence to describe the pathophysiology, molecular, and pathologic characteristics of the more commonly seen non-clear cell RCC variants, including papillary, chromophobe, translocation, FH-deficient, as well as a group of "unclassified" RCCs. Additionally, we provide an overview of the available evidence from recent clinical trials for non-clear cell RCC and current treatment paradigms. Key Content and Findings: The diagnostic approach for renal malignancies is rapidly changing, favoring a more molecular and genetically based approach. These techniques will allow for a more detailed understanding of the clinical behavior of these cancers. Most data for non-clear cell RCC are from single-arm phase 2 clinical trials. The clinical response to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) varies greatly by histology. Conclusions: Molecularly targeted therapy as monotherapy or when combined with immunotherapy have efficacy in non-clear cell RCC, though there are differences in treatment response by histology.
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.