ReviewCureus2025
Surveillance Protocols After Nephrectomy or Ablation in Renal Cancer: A Scoping Review of Variations, Evidence, and Research Gaps.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guidelines and surveillance practices after nephrectomy or renal cell carcinoma (RCC) ablation are very diverse across institutions. It has been proven that close follow-up is essential to identify local recurrence, metastatic spread, and treatment-related complications, but the frequency, length, and imaging modalities employed in surveillance are widely different in terms of practices. Although these guidelines have been advised by larger organizations like the American Urological Association (AUA) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), they are mostly risk-stratified and lack comparative data. Entirely new imaging methods (such as multiparametric MRI and state-of-the-art contrast-enhanced CT) have been proposed to enhance early disease diagnosis and are currently under consideration regarding their cost-effectiveness and long-term results. Simultaneously, some minimally invasive ablative forms of treatment, such as radiofrequency and cryoablation, have complicated surveillance measures, given that recurrence patterns differ from those seen after conventional nephrectomy. Although systematic reviews have found the oncological safety of active surveillance in specific small kidney masses, research still shows loopholes regarding regular follow-up and outcome reporting that is patient-centered. Out of 170 records initially identified, 140 unique articles were screened after duplicate removal, with 30 assessed in full text. Following exclusions, five studies were finally included in the review. These comprised a mixture of clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and observational studies, highlighting the heterogeneity of follow-up schedules, imaging-based approaches, and patient risk stratification. This scoping review maps the existing literature on surveillance following nephrectomy or ablation in RCC. The review establishes differences in practice, evidence, and research gaps that need to be harmonized to enhance long-term management.
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.