ArticleCurrent urology2024
Partial versus radical nephrectomy for T1b renal cell carcinoma: A comparison of efficacy and prognostic factors based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
Article in Current 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study compared the long-term efficacy and prognostic factors of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) for T1bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 12,471 patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 RCC from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 2010 and 2019. Patients were divided into the PN and RN groups, and propensity score matching was conducted to balance the differences between the groups. We compared overall survival (OS), RCC cancer-specific mortality (CSM), and noncancer-specific mortality (NCSM) between the 2 groups. The risk factors for all-cause and RCC-related mortality were analyzed. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 3817 patients in each group. After matching, OS and NCSM were significantly longer in the PN group ( Conclusions: In patients with T1b RCC, PN resulted in better OS and NCSM outcomes than RN. The benefit of PN in all-cause mortality was pronounced in patients with 4.0-5.5 cm tumor loads. Therefore, individualized treatment schemes should prioritize PN, when technically feasible.
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.