ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
SCREENing smarter: outperforming IMDC in predicting first-year mortality among patients undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Selection for Cytoreductive Nephrectomy (SCREEN) criteria were developed to predict first-year mortality after cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patient. SCREEN addressed several clinical difficulties from widely adopted International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model for risk prognostication. However, no external validation had been performed.
methodsClinical, haematological, and radiological data of consecutive synchronous mRCC patients undergoing CN at a tertiary hospital (1984–2022) were analysed. A subgroup analysis (2006–2017) was done to confirm modern relevance. Kaplan-Meier analysis, logistic regression, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were performed for validation.
resultsAmong 150 patients with synchronous mRCC who had upfront CN, SCREEN and IMDC stratified patients into favourable- (19% vs. 8%), intermediate- (58% vs. 66%) and poor-risk (23% vs. 26%) groups respectively. The first-year mortality rate was 25.3% for the entire cohort. The first-year mortality rate for SCREEN risk groups was 7.7%, 17.8% and 47.4% (p < 0.001) while for IMDC risk groups was 8.3%, 20.3% and 33.4% respectively (p = 0.087). SCREEN poor-risk patients had significantly higher odds of first-year mortality risk (OR: 19.5, p < 0.001) compared to IMDC (OR: 6.87, p = 0.078). SCREEN demonstrated superior discriminative ability (area under curve (AUC): 0.74 vs. 0.61, p < 0.05). DCA showed that SCREEN provided greater clinical benefit than IMDC across mortality risk thresholds between 15% and 60%.
conclusionThis is the first study that externally validated SCREEN criteria as a high-performing tool in an independent Asian cohort. SCREEN outperformed IMDC, especially in the poor-risk group, and identified more favourable-risk patients who may benefit from CN with minimal downgrading of patients from IMDC poor-risk group. By incorporating key radiological variables, SCREEN aids more inclusive and accurate patient selection for surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41273447What 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.