Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40743229›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Renal cancer survival in clear cell renal cancer compared to other types of tumor histology: A population-based cohort study.

Teesi Sepp, Antti Poyhonen, Anneli Uusküla, Andres Kotsar, Thea Veitonmäki, Teuvo L J Tammela, Aleksei Baburin, Teemu J Murtola

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Teesi SeppUniversity of Tartu, Faculty of Medicine, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4787-3252
Antti PoyhonenCentre for Military Medicine, Finnish Defence Forces, Riihimäki, Finland.
Anneli UuskülaInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4036-3856
Andres KotsarTartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia.
Thea VeitonmäkiTampere University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere, Finland.
Teuvo L J TammelaTampere University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere, Finland.
Aleksei BaburinInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Teemu J MurtolaTampere University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRenal cancer (RC) presents a challenge with increasing incidence and mortality. This study compares RC cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) based on histological type. STUDY

designThis population-based retrospective cohort study covers 1995-2017, utilizing cases from the Finnish Cancer Registry. Comorbidity, procedure and treatment information from 1995-2018 were obtained from the national health care registry, while death data originated from the national death certificate registry. RC cases were categorized by histology to analyze CSS and OS via Fine and Gray's proportional sub-hazards model and Cox regression (adjusting for age, tumor extent, Charlson comorbidity index and treatment).

resultsThe final cohort included 14,413 patients, predominantly ccRCC (75.5%), followed by papillary RCC (pRCC),5.8% and chromophobe RCC (chRCC) 2.1%. Univariate analysis showed better OS for non-ccRCC patients, with 5-year survival (5ySR) of 72.6% (95% CI 70.3-74.7%), compared to ccRCC (62.7%, 95%CI 61.8-63.5). Among non-ccRCC, the 5ySRs were as follows: pRCC 74.3% (95%CI 71.2-77.2), chRCC 82.2% (95% CI 77.2-86.1), sarcomatoid variants (sarcRC) 29.2% (95% CI 20.6-38.3), and collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) 23.5% (95%CI 7.3-44.9). Non-ccRCC showed improved CSS compared to ccRCC (sHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60-0.78). Favorable CSS for chRCC (sHR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18-0.43) and pRCC (sHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.78), while sarcRC (sHR 1.83, 95% CI 1.36-2.46) and CDC (sHR 3.19, 95% CI 2.01-5.08) showed poorer CSS. Overall, non-ccRCC had a better prognosis, driven by pRCC and chRCC, whereas sarcRC and CDC had poor prognoses. CSS has improved over time, with a 62% reduction in death risk since 1995.

conclusionOur results demonstrate that the histological subtype is a powerful predictor of survival. Histology should be used more in clinical decision-making. Having a histological confirmation would tailor the selection of treatment: surgical management for aggressive and ccRCC and conservative management for less aggressive histological types.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleFinlandHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID40743229
PMCPMC12312934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.