MP75-09 THE NATURAL HISTORY OF RENAL FUNCTION AFTER SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF RENAL CELL CARCINOMA: RESULTS FROM THE CANADIAN KIDNEY CANCER INFORMATION SYSTEM
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy V1 Apr 2016MP75-09 THE NATURAL HISTORY OF RENAL FUNCTION AFTER SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF RENAL CELL CARCINOMA: RESULTS FROM THE CANADIAN KIDNEY CANCER INFORMATION SYSTEM Ross Mason, Anil Kapoor, Zhihui Liu, Olli Saarela, SImon Tanguay, Michael Jewett, Antonio Finelli, Louis Lacombe, Jun Kawakami, Ronald Moore, Chris Morash, Peter Black, and Ricardo Rendon Ross MasonRoss Mason , Anil KapoorAnil Kapoor , Zhihui LiuZhihui Liu , Olli SaarelaOlli Saarela , SImon TanguaySImon Tanguay , Michael JewettMichael Jewett , Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli , Louis LacombeLouis Lacombe , Jun KawakamiJun Kawakami , Ronald MooreRonald Moore , Chris MorashChris Morash , Peter BlackPeter Black , and Ricardo RendonRicardo Rendon View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1727AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Patients who undergo surgical management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are at risk for chronic kidney disease due to loss of nephrons and intraoperative ischemic injury. This decrease in renal function is associated with both increased morbidity and mortality. This study explored factors associated with decreased renal function in patients undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy. METHODS Patients who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy were identified from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCIS), a large multiinstitutional prospectively maintained database. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine the association between post-operative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and type or surgery (radical versus partial), duration of ischemia, ischemia type (warm versus cold), and tumor size. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 26 months, 1379 patients were identified from the CKCIS database including 665 and 714 who underwent partial and radical nephrectomy, respectively. Patients undergoing radical nephrectomy had a lower eGFR at 3, 12, and 24 months post-operatively with the mean eGFR at 3 months being 19 ml/min/1.73m2 lower than those undergoing partial nephrectomy (p<0.001). A lower pre-operative eGFR and increasing age were also associated with a lower eGFR post-operatively (p<0.01) in both the entire cohort and among patients undergoing partial nephrectomy. Severe renal failure (Stage 4 or 5) developed post-operatively in 31.0%, 5.4%, and 1.1% of patients with pre-operative stage 1, 2, or 3 chronic kidney disease. Among patients undergoing partial nephrectomy, ischemia type and duration were not predictive of post-operative decline in eGFR at all time intervals. CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing radical nephrectomy have a greater long-term reduction in renal function compared with those undergoing partial nephrectomy. In this modern series with generally short ischemia durations, ischemia duration and type were not predictive of post-operative renal function. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e981-e982 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Ross Mason More articles by this author Anil Kapoor More articles by this author Zhihui Liu More articles by this author Olli Saarela More articles by this author SImon Tanguay More articles by this author Michael Jewett More articles by this author Antonio Finelli More articles by this author Louis Lacombe More articles by this author Jun Kawakami More articles by this author Ronald Moore More articles by this author Chris Morash More articles by this author Peter Black More articles by this author Ricardo Rendon More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,038 | 0,010 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».