Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in patients with synchronous metastases from renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
396 Background: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy is unclear in patients with synchronous metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the age of targeted therapy. Methods: Comparisons were made between patients treated with targeted therapy who had a CN versus not and adjusted using proportional hazards regression for known poor prognostic criteria (IMDC criteria Heng et al JCO 2009). Results: 2569/3245 (79%) mRCC patients received a nephrectomy. Patients who had nephrectomy before the diagnosis of metastatic disease were excluded (n=1634). Among the remaining patients, 935 patients had a CN and 676 patients did not have nephrectomy. All patients received targeted therapy with the majority receiving first-line sunitinib 72%, sorafenib 15%, temsirolimus 5%, bevacizumab 3%, pazopanib 3%. Patients who had CN had better IMDC prognostic profiles versus those without (favorable/intermediate/poor in 9%/63%/28% vs 1%/45%/54% p<0.0001). The median overall survival of patients with CN vs without was 20.6 vs 9.5 months (p<0.0001). When adjusted for IMDC criteria to correct for imbalances, the HR of death was 0.60 (95%CI 0.52-0.69, p<0.0001). The Table demonstrates the increasing benefit of CN if a given patient has a longer survival time. Conclusions: CN can be beneficial in patients with synchronous metastatic RCC even after adjustment for prognostic factors. Patients who are estimated to survive less than 9-12 months may have a marginal benefit compared to those with longer estimated survival. This may aid in patient selection as we await results from randomized controlled trials. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".