ArticleWorld journal of nephrology2025
Survival and treatment of stage IV renal cell carcinoma in academic
Article in World journal of nephrology, 2025. 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRenal cell carcinoma (RCC) is treated with surgical resection as the gold standard, as it is notoriously resistant to systemic therapy. Advancements with targeted therapies contribute to declining mortality, but metastatic RCC (mRCC) survival remains poor. One possible factor is treatment at academic centers, which employ advanced providers and novel therapies. This study compared outcomes of mRCC in patients treated at academic/research facilities compared to those treated at non-academic centers.
aimTo compare survival outcomes of mRCC and their various etiologies between academic and non-academic centers.
methodsThe National Cancer Database was used to identify mRCC patients including all histology subtypes and stage IV disease. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier curves measured survival outcomes for user file facility types sorted into a binary academic/research and non-academic research variable. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard testing generated odds ratio and hazard ratio. Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 29.0 using a significance level of
resultsOverall, academic facility patients experienced greater 5-year and 10-year overall survival than non-academic facility patients. Treatment at non-academic facilities was associated with increased odds of death that persisted even after controlling for age, tumor size, sex, and distance traveled to treatment center. In comparison, non-academic facility patients also experienced greater risk of hazard.
conclusionPatients with mRCC treated at academic/research facilities experienced increased survival compared to patients treated at non-academic facilities, were more likely to be younger, carry private insurance, and come from a large metropolitan area. They also were significantly more likely to receive surgery and adjuvant immunotherapy.
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.