ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Validation of novel grading schemes and refinement of the Leibovich risk groups for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional grading systems have proven inadequate in stratifying chRCC patients based on recurrence risk. Recently, several novel grading schemes, including three-tiered, two-tiered, and four-tiered systems, have been proposed, but their prognostic value remains controversial and lacks external validation. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe included 528 patients with pathologically proven chRCC (chromophobe renal cell carcinoma) from multiple medical institutions and the Cancer Genome Atlas-Kidney Chromophobe cohort. Three experienced pathologists independently reassessed the slides based on the three novel grading schemes. Survival outcomes, including disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression models. The prognostic value of the original and adjusted Leibovich risk groups was compared using Harrell's C-index.
resultsAll grading systems demonstrated significant survival differences among their respective groups (p < 0.001 for all). However, within the four-tiered system, no significant survival disparity was observed between grade 1 and grade 2 tumors (GTG2 without necrosis) (p = 0.619 for DSS). When patients with necrosis were excluded, no survival difference was detected between CTG1 and CTG2 tumors in the three-tiered system (p = 0.870 for DSS), challenging the prognostic utility of distinguishing between these two grades. The adjusted Leibovich risk stratification (C-index = 0.840 for DSS), incorporating necrosis and tumor thrombus, demonstrated superior prognostic value compared to the original model (C-index = 0.762 for DSS), with more pronounced survival distinctions and improved predictive performance.
conclusionOur study validates the prognostic significance of recently developed grading systems for chRCC. The observed survival difference between CTG1 and CTG2 in the three-tiered system may be attributed to varying percentages of coagulative necrosis. By integrating necrosis and tumor thrombus into the Leibovich risk groups, we enhanced the model's ability to distinguish between patients and improved its predictive performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39714606What 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.