ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
External Validation of the GRade, Age, Nodes and Tumor (GRANT) Score for Patients with Surgically Treated Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective external validation of the GRade, Age, Nodes and Tumor score in the ECOG-ACRIN EA8143 PROSPER trial.The oncologist · 2026Trial
- Review
- Prognostic value of the GRANT score and development of a nomogram in papillary renal cell carcinoma: a SEER-based study with external validation in a Chinese cohort.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Advances in Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionStratifying the risk of recurrence for surgically treated papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) could be challenging. Prognostic models are crucial for patient counselling and individualized surveillance. The GRANT score is one of the models suggested by guidelines to predict prognosis of surgically treated pRCC. This study aims to externally validate the GRANT score using a three-risk group stratification in a large cohort of pRCC patients.Materials and MethodsThe present analysis utilized retrospective data from pRCC patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy. The GRANT score parameters included tumor grade, age, pathological T-stage, and N-stage. Patients were stratified into three risk groups (0-1 vs 2 vs 3-4 risk factors). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences between groups were evaluated using the log-rank test. Harrell's c-index was used to measure model accuracy, and restricted mean survival time (RMST) was calculated for up to 120 months.ResultsA total of 1942 patients were included. The median follow-up was 64.6 months. At 60 months, CSS was 93.2% (95%CI 91.7%-94.6%) for group 1, 60.8% (95%CI 54.0%-78.6%) for group 2, and 26% (95%CI 15.7%-42.9%) for group 3, with significant differences between each group (p < 0.001). The median CSS was not reached for group 1 (95%CI NR-NR), 86.0 months in group 2 (95%CI 65-NR), and 22.8 months in group 3 (95%CI 16.4-48.0). The c-index for CSS was 0.732. The RMST at 120 months was 113.3 months for group 1, 75.9 months for group 2, and 56.6 months for group 3, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001).ConclusionThe GRANT score effectively stratified surgically treated pRCC patients into three risk groups, demonstrating good prognostic accuracy. This validation supports the GRANT score's utility as a reliable and easy-to-use prognostic tool.
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.