Extrarenal renal cell carcinoma arising in the kidney proximity but without an identifiable renal primary – an intriguing dilemma: report of three cases and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To raise awareness of the existence of extrarenal renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS AND RESULTS: We report three patients with extrarenal RCC found in the renal proximity, but unattached to the kidney. None had a history of RCC or an identifiable primary renal neoplasm at the time of the diagnosis and on follow-up. The patients included two males and one female aged 57, 77, and 63 years, respectively. One carcinoma was found in the perirenal tissue adjacent to the adrenal, one involved the adrenal gland, and one was a retroperitoneal mass found within the lymph nodes. Two extrarenal RCCs represented clear-cell RCCs and one was an unclassifiable RCC. No patient had evidence of metastases at presentation and disease progression during the follow-up. This report adds to the literature on this unusual clinical scenario and further supports the concept of extrarenal RCC, which is not a well-recognized clinical phenomenon. We also reviewed other similar reports documenting the absence of identifiable renal primaries in the setting of either disseminated metastatic disease or isolated distant metastases of presumed renal origin. Similarly, some carcinomas of apparent renal derivation have been also identified during a work-up of metastatic carcinomas of unknown primary. CONCLUSIONS: There should be an awareness of this unusual and intriguing clinical scenario that currently lacks a definitive explanation and standardized therapy strategies. Establishing a correct diagnosis may allow treatment with specific targeted therapies in selected clinical cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".