A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Head-to-head comparison of all the prognostic models recommended by the European Association of Urology Guidelines to predict oncologic outcomes in patients with renal cell carcinoma. | LitMetric

Objectives: European Urology Association guidelines suggest the use of integrated prognostic systems to assess oncologic outcomes after surgery in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We performed a head-to-head comparison among all the EAU guidelines recommended prognostic models in RCC.

Methods: The study included 2,014 patients treated with surgery for clinically localized RCC. Patients were classified into prognostic risk groups, based on each of the five EAU guidelines recommended prognostic model definition, namely UISS, Leibovich 2003, VENUSS, GRANT, and Leibovich 2018 score. Prognostic accuracy of each prognostic model to predict clinical progression or cancer-specific mortality (CSM) was assessed, and ROC curves were calculated, according to histological subtype, namely clear-cell, papillary, and chromophobe RCC.

Results: Of 2,014 patients, 1,575 (78%) harboured clear-cell, 312 (16%) papillary, and 127 (6%) chromophobe RCC. Median follow-up was 66 months [Interquartile range (IQR): 29-120]. In clear-cell RCC, low-risk patients rates ranged from 21% to 64%, according prognostic model. The same phenomenon was observed for papillary and chromophobe RCC. In clear-cell RCC, Leibovich 2018 resulted the most accurate model in predicting clinical progression (88.1%) and CSM (86.8%). Conversely, VENUSS or UISS prognostic models predicting oncologic outcomes represented the most accurate in papillary (88.7% and 84.8%) or chromophobe (87.8% and 89.1%) RCC, respectively.

Conclusions: A non-negligible difference in terms of performance accuracy exists among the EAU guidelines recommended prognostic models. Thus, their adoption in RCC should be histology-specific and follow-up strategies based on prognostic risk class appear justified only if the appropriate model is used to stratify patients into prognostic risk groups.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.12.010DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prognostic models
16
prognostic
12
oncologic outcomes
12
eau guidelines
12
guidelines recommended
12
recommended prognostic
12
prognostic risk
12
prognostic model
12
head-to-head comparison
8
renal cell
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!