MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of frailty on perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing surgery or ablation for renal cancer: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3210275619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Riccardo Campi, Alessandro Berni, Daniele Amparore, Riccardo Bertolo, Umberto Capitanio, Umberto Carbonara, Selçuk Erdem, Alexandre Ingels, Önder Kara, Tobias Klatte, Maximilian C. Kriegmair, Michele Marchioni, Andrea Minervini, Maria Carmen Mir, Rocco Papalia, Nicola Pavan, Angela Pecoraro, Juan Gómez Rivas, Giulia Rivasi, Eduard Roussel, Andrea Ungar, Sergio Serni, Francesco Esperto

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Urology and Nephrology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaPerioperativeCochrane LibraryRenal cell carcinomaMEDLINEGeriatric oncologySystematic reviewInternal medicineCancerSurgeryMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Frailty has been recognized as a major risk factor for adverse perioperative and oncological outcomes in patients with genitourinary malignancies. Yet, the evidence supporting such an association in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is still sparse. Herein we provide an updated comprehensive overview of the impact of frailty on perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing surgery or ablation for RCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the English-language literature was conducted using the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases according to the principles highlighted by the EAU Guidelines Office and the PRISMA statement recommendations. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021242516). The overall quality of evidence was assessed according to GRADE recommendations. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 18 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Most of these were retrospective single-center series including patients undergoing surgery for non-metastatic RCC. The overall quality of evidence was low. A variety of measures were used for frailty assessment, including the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Frailty Index, the five-item frailty index, the Modified Rockwood's Clinical Frailty Scale Score, the Hopkins Frailty score, the Groningen Frailty Index, and the Geriatric nutritional risk index. Sarcopenia was defined based on the Lumbar skeletal muscle mass at cross-sectional imaging, the skeletal muscle index, the total psoas area, or the Psoas Muscle Index. Overall, available studies point to frailty and sarcopenia as potential independent risk factors for worse perioperative and oncological outcomes after surgery or ablation for different RCC stages. Increased patient's frailty was indeed associated with higher risk of perioperative complications, healthcare resources utilization, readmission rates and longer hospitalization periods, as well as potentially lower cancer specific or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty has been consistently associated with worse outcomes after surgery for RCC, reinforcing the value of preoperative frailty assessment in carefully selected patients. Given the low quality of the available evidence (especially in the setting of tumor ablation), prospective studies are needed to standardize frailty assessments and to identify patients who are expected to benefit most from preoperative geriatric evaluation, aiming to optimize decision-making and postoperative outcomes in patients with RCC.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva Urology and NephrologySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207