MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396814048 · doi:10.3233/kca-230025

Patient Selection for Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2024· review· en· W4396814048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alfredo Distante, Riccardo Bertolo, Riccardo Campi, Selçuk Erdem, Anna Caliò, Carlotta Palumbo, Nicola Pavan, Chiara Ciccarese, Umberto Carbonara, Michele Marchioni, Eduard Roussel, Zhenjie Wu, Peter F.A. Mulders, Stijn Muselaers

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney Cancer · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcordanceSystematic reviewMeta-analysisComorbidityMEDLINEInternal medicineCochrane LibraryOncologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The role of active surveillance (AS) has been recognized as a management strategy for localized small renal masses (SRMs). The EAU guidelines suggest AS can be offered to frail and/or comorbid patients diagnosed with SRM due to the low cancer-specific-mortality (CSM) and higher competing-cause mortality. As specific cut-offs defining the characteristics of frail and comorbid patients who may benefit from AS remain less clear, our objective is to conduct a systematic review aiming to identify potential characteristics that could assist physicians in shared decision-making. METHODS: The systematic literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Two authors independently screened the literature according to the PICOs criteria previously outlined in our registered review protocol (via Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias, using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies that analyzed differences in patient’s tumor-related and molecular characteristics associated with any differences in growth rate (GR), overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS), were considered eligible. RESULTS: Nineteen studies comprising a total of 5105 patients were analyzed. Patient-specific factors such as age and cardiovascular index, which demonstrated a predominant impact on OS, exhibited a high degree of consistency across the analyzed studies. Less concordance was found when exploring GR, with the main predictors being ethnicity, age, sex, comorbidity, symptoms, and eGFR. The analysis of tumor-related characteristics, such as tumor size, nephrometry score, and mass histology, among others, yielded contradictory outcomes concerning their impact on GR and CSS. CONCLUSION: Age, cardiovascular index, and chronic kidney disease have shown to be reliable predictors of OS. Nonetheless, significant debates persist regarding tumor characteristics or molecular markers that may influence survival and GR. Further research is awaited to shed light on the potential to identify prognostic factors. This would aid in pinpointing the subgroup of patients who could experience additional benefits from AS, potentially leading to a reduced risk of progression. It is imperative to standardize approaches to AS and reporting of results, as this will be pivotal for future quantitative analyses.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney CancerSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207