ArticleCureus2026
A Survey of Oncologists' Perceptions and Opinions Regarding Brain Imaging in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Within the UK.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain metastases are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Despite emerging evidence suggesting a clinically meaningful prevalence of asymptomatic brain metastases, there remains no consensus regarding routine central nervous system (CNS) imaging in this population. This questionnaire study aimed to explore current opinions and management practices relating to brain imaging for aRCC across the UK. A nationwide, web-based survey was conducted using Google Forms between June and October 2025, targeting UK oncology consultants with a subspecialist interest in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The questionnaire assessed demographics, guideline use, current CNS imaging practices, and willingness to change practice. Fifty consultants were invited to participate, and 25 responses were received, representing a 50% response rate from multiple centres across the UK. Most respondents (68%) reported not following any specific guideline for CNS imaging in patients with aRCC. Considerable variation in clinical practice was observed. Nearly half of respondents (48%) reported performing CNS imaging only in the presence of neurological symptoms, while 28% performed routine surveillance imaging in asymptomatic patients. Smaller proportions reported imaging patients with high-risk features at diagnosis (12%), incorporating CNS imaging into baseline staging for metastatic disease (4%), or performing imaging only at disease progression or change in systemic therapy (8%). Imaging modality and surveillance frequency also varied widely. Notably, 92% of respondents stated they would consider adopting routine CNS imaging for all patients with aRCC if evidence demonstrated improved clinical outcomes. This survey demonstrates substantial variability in CNS imaging practices for patients with aRCC among UK oncology consultants, reflecting the absence of standardised guidance. The strong willingness to change practice highlights the need for prospective studies to clarify the clinical value, optimal timing, and cost-effectiveness of routine brain imaging. Robust evidence is required to inform evidence-based guidelines, reduce practice variation, and support consistent, patient-centred care for patients with aRCC.
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.