Management, outcomes and predictors of recurrence in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: Results from the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
389 Background: Chromophobe RCC (chRCC) make up 5% of all RCC however data regarding baseline demographics, management, outcomes, and predictors of recurrence and survival is lacking. Methods: The Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) is a multi-institutional prospective cohort. Patients (pts) with clinically localized chRCC between Jan 2011-Aug 2023 were included. Descriptive statistics were used, time to recurrence and death were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and associations were determined using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: chRCC made up 5.3% of all RCC pts in CKCis and only 2.4% presented with metastatic disease. This study cohort includes 797 pts who presented with localized disease. Median follow up 4.1 yrs, mean age 58.4 yrs and male in 58.5%. Management included: surgery 90.2%, surveillance 5.5%, or other local modalities 3.3%. Recurrence occurred in 59 pts (7.4%): 50 (85%) with metastases, 7 (12%) with local recurrence, and 2 (3.4%) with contralateral tumors. Median time to recurrence was 2 yrs. Management of recurrences included: systemic therapy in 46%, radiation in 29%, metastasectomy in 25%, surveillance in 8%. 5 and 10 year overall survival was 95% and 83% in all pts, 97% and 90% if no recurrence and 75% and 44% if recurrence. In the 90.2% (718 pts) treated with curative surgery, predictors of recurrence on multivariate analysis include: higher T stage, necrosis, and sarcomatoid features. Predictors of worse survival include: sarcomatoid features, larger tumor size, higher T stage, and higher number of comorbidities. Conclusions: In this large Canadian cohort, patients with chRCC usually present with localized disease and have relatively favorable oncologic outcomes, even when they recur. Larger tumors with sarcomatoid features have a worse survival and more intensive follow up may be beneficial. The favorable 5 and 10 year outcomes in chRCC are a reminder that studies must be conducted and reported for individual histologies and not as a large cohort of non clear cell RCC. [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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".