MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy and systemic therapy in the management of tumor thrombus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

2022· article· en· W4213314922 on OpenAlexaff
Abhenil Mittal, Esmail Mutahar Al-Ezzi, Xuan Li, Brooke E. Wilson, Pavlina Spiliopoulou, Srikala S. Sridhar, Nazanin Fallah‐Rad, Peter Chung, Robert J. Hamilton, Aaron R. Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaSystemic therapyThrombusNephrectomyInternal medicineCancerUrologyOncologyProgression-free survivalCohortSurgeryChemotherapyKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

345 Background: Patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and tumor thrombus have historically been treated with cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN), however, their outcomes remain poor. Recent phase III data suggest the role for cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in mRCC is limited. To date, only case-reports have described thrombus response to systemic therapy. Here, we describe response and survival outcomes of de novo mRCC patients with thrombi treated with systemic therapy with or without CN. Methods: Pts with de novo mRCC at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre were identified. Demographics, disease characteristics (including the presence of thrombus) and survival outcomes were collected. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in months (m) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method (log-rank). Results: We identified 226 pts with de novo mRCC between 2002 and 2019. Pt demographics are listed in the table. In total, 157 pts underwent a CN and 69 received only systemic therapy. Of the total cohort, 64 pts (28%) had tumor thrombus at presentation (46 CN, 18 no CN). Of the 18 patients with tumor thrombus treated with only systemic therapy, 17 received first-line angiogenesis inhibitors and 1 had chemotherapy (medullary histology). Six (33%) had thrombus progression, 8 (44%) had stable disease and four (22%) had an objective response. Median PFS and OS for patients with and without tumor thrombus treated with systemic therapy only was not significantly different [5.3m (95% CI 3.6-11.7) vs 4.1m (95% CI 3.1-5.9)), p=0.33; OS: 12.1m (95% CI 8.8-27.7) vs 13.9m (95% CI 7.9-21.5), p=0.87). PFS for patients with tumor thrombus who had CN was similar to those treated with systemic therapy alone [8.4m (95% CI: 5.7-13.4) vs 5.3m (95% CI 3.6-11.7), p=0.57] but OS was significantly better favoring CN [29.4m (95% CI: 17.4-48.9) vs 12.1m (95% CI 8.8-27.7), p=0.01). Conclusions: In this largest series of patients with mRCC and thrombus treated with systemic therapy +/- CN, CN appears to plays an important role. More data is needed for patients with tumor thrombus treated with immunotherapy to confirm these findings and elucidate the role of surgery in those cohorts. Bias due to the retrospective study design is an important limitation.[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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→