Chronic kidney disease and risk of kidney or urothelial malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is highly prevalent, affecting approximately 11% of US adults. Multiple studies have evaluated a potential association between CKD and urinary tract malignancies. Summary estimates of urinary tract malignancy risk in CKD patients with and without common co-existing conditions may guide clinical practice recommendations. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched for original cohort studies evaluating the association between CKD and urinary tract cancers (kidney cancer and urothelial carcinoma) through 25 May 2023, in persons with at least moderate CKD and no dialysis or kidney transplantation. Quality assessment was performed for studies meeting inclusion criteria using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis with a random-effects model was performed for unadjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) as well as adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for confounding conditions (diabetes, hypertension and/or tobacco use), shown to have association with kidney cancer and urothelial carcinoma. Sub-analysis was conducted for estimates associated with CKD stages separately. RESULTS: Six cohort studies with 8 617 563 persons were included. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was good. CKD was associated with both higher unadjusted incidence and adjusted hazard of kidney cancer (IRR 3.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.32-4.88; aHR 2.04, 95% CI 1.77-2.36) and urothelial cancer (IRR 3.96, 95% CI 2.44-6.40; aHR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22-1.50) compared with persons without CKD. Examining incident urinary tract cancers by CKD severity, risks were elevated in stage 3 CKD (kidney aHR 1.89, 95% CI 1.56-2.30; urothelial carcinoma aHR 1.35, 95% CI 1.20-1.52) as well as in stages 4/5 CKD (kidney cancer aHR 2.30, 95% CI 2.00-2.66; urothelial carcinoma aHR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: Even moderate CKD is associated with elevated risk of kidney cancer and urothelial carcinoma. Providers should consider these elevated risks when managing individuals with CKD, particularly when considering evaluation for the presence and etiology of hematuria.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".