Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40777103›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in urology2024

Lights and shadows on local recurrence after renal surgery: when, why and how to manage.

Luca Di Gianfrancesco, Alessandro Crestani, Antonio Amodeo, Paolo Corsi, Davide De Marchi, Eugenio Miglioranza, Giuliana Lista, Ferdinando Daniele Vitelli, Francesca Simonetti, Gian Maria Busetto and 6 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Luca Di GianfrancescoDepartment of Oncological Urology, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), Padua, Italy.
Alessandro CrestaniDepartment of Urology, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, Italy.
Antonio AmodeoDepartment of Oncological Urology, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), Padua, Italy.
Paolo CorsiDepartment of Oncological Urology, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), Padua, Italy.
Davide De MarchiDepartment of Oncological Urology, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), Padua, Italy.
Eugenio MiglioranzaDepartment of Oncological Urology, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), Padua, Italy.
Giuliana ListaDepartment of Oncological Urology, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), Padua, Italy.
Ferdinando Daniele VitelliDepartment of Oncological Urology, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), Padua, Italy.
Francesca SimonettiDepartment of Oncological Urology, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), Padua, Italy.
Gian Maria BusettoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Ospedale Riuniti, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Ugo Giovanni FalagarioDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Ospedale Riuniti, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Martina MaggiDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Filippo MarinoDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Giannicola GenoveseDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Genomic Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Roberto FalabellaDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Regionale San Carlo, Potenza, Italy.
Angelo PorrecaDepartment of Oncological Urology, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), Padua, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This review aims to analyze the existing literature on local recurrence (LR) in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) for renal cell carcinoma, identifying relative risk factors, and exploring optimal clinical management strategies. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across bibliographic databases, primarily focusing on LR rates. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of positive surgical margins (PSM), nephrometry scores, pathological stage (T and grading), perioperative outcomes, time-to-LR, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival. Results: Due to the heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed. LR rates after PN varied in the literature; with PSM emerging as a significant risk factor. Other LR risk factors included pathological stage, nephrometry scores, and histological variants. However, evidence regarding optimal LR management in the absence of precise indications was lacking. Conclusion: LR represents a significant clinical challenge; requiring multidisciplinary assessment and shared decision-making with patients. Given well-established risk factors, clinicians must tailor management strategies to optimize patient outcomes.

Indexed as

local recurrencepartial nephrectomypositive surgical marginprognostic factorrenal cell carcinomareview

Identifiers

PMID40777103
PMCPMC12327261

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.