ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2025
Development of a prognostic risk model for clear cell renal cell carcinoma by systematic evaluation of DNA methylation markers: an update after ISUP/WHO 2022 classification.
Article in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 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.
- Translational milestones in urologic pathology: integrating molecular diagnostics across cancer types.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although several prognostic models have been developed for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), these are still suboptimal and there is a need to identify additional prognostic biomarkers. Previously, we developed a prognostic model containing five DNA methylation markers (NEFH, NEURL, GATA5, GREM1, and LAD1) and clinicopathological characteristics based on the TNM 3rd edition and Fuhrman grading system. Here, we evaluated the effect of the recent ISUP/ 2022 WHO revisions on our previous prognostic model by incorporating the new ISUP/WHO standards, TNM 8th edition, and several novel prognostic factors (necrosis, lymphovascular invasion, sarcomatoid and rhabdoid features). Data from 308 ccRCC cases from the Netherlands Cohort Study were included for this study. Clinicopathological factors, novel prognostic factors, and the five methylation markers were analyzed for their individual and combined prognostic value using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazard models. To compare models, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and c-statistic were used. All evaluated factors were statistically significantly associated with cause-specific survival. The clinical model using the ISUP and TNM 8th edition performed similarly when compared to the Fuhrman/TNM 3rd edition model (AIC 592, c-statistic 0.63 and AIC 595, c-statistic 0.62, respectively). After addition of the five DNA methylation markers to the ISUP/TNM 8th model, this model was slightly improved (AIC 584, c-statistic 0.70). The addition of necrosis and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) did not further improve these results (AIC 586, c-statistic 0.71 and AIC 588, c-statistic 0.71, respectively). Despite the individual prognostic significance of necrosis, LVI, the presence of sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation, ISUP, and TNM 8th edition, these factors did not influence the performance of our prognostic model. The model including the five DNA methylation markers, age at diagnosis, sex, TNM stage (8th edition), ISUP grading, and tumor size was the best performing model, thereby highlighting the potential importance of molecular markers.
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.