Microvascular invasion is associated with poor prognosis in renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis aims to explore the association between microvascular invasion (MVI) and clinicopathologiccal features, as well as survival outcomes of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Material and methods The retrospective cohort study included 30 RCC patients with positive MVI and another 75 patients with negative MVI as controls. Clinicopathological features and follow-up data were compiled. The meta-analysis conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and WanFang Data from the beginning to 30 September 2023, for comparative studies relevant to MVI patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Egger Test were used to assess the risk of biases and certainty of evidence in the included studies. Results The cohort study showed that MVI was associated with advanced primary tumor stage, high pathological grades, high tumor size, high clinical symptoms and lymph node invasion (P <0.05). Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated MVI was associated with worse CSS rates when compared to MVI negative group (P <0.05). However, in the multivariate analysis it was not presented as an independent predictor of cancer survival mortality (P >0.05). The meta-analysis part included 11 cohort studies. The results confirmed that patients with MVI positive had worse 12 and 60 mo CSS rates (HR12mo = 0.86, 95%CI 0.80–0.92; HR60mo = 0.63, 95% CI 0.55–0.72; P < 0.00001). Moreover, the meta-analysis also confirmed that MVI group was associated with higher rate of advanced tumor stage, pathological grades, tumor size diameter, higher rate of clinical symptoms and lymph node invasion (P <0.05). Conclusions The presence of MVI in renal cell carcinoma patients is linked to poorer survival outcomes and worse clinicopathological features. In spite of this, it does not seem to be an independent predictor for cancer survival mortality in renal cell carcinoma. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023470640 , identifier CRD42023470640.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".