Prognostic Models and Factors for Patients with Renal-Cell Carcinoma: A Survey on Their Use Among Urologists

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorHew, Miki N.
dc.contributor.authorZondervan, Patricia J.
dc.contributor.authorGuven, Selcuk
dc.contributor.authorde la Rosette, Jean
dc.contributor.authorLaguna, M. Pilar
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T14:20:57Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T14:20:57Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To assess the use of prognostic factors and models in renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) and to gain insight in the motivations precluding prognosis estimation and the use of prognosticators. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 110 urologists involved in the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) Global Renal Mass Study. Frequencies were gathered using descriptive statistics. Results: The majority of the 86 responders worked in a university hospital in Europe. Most of the urologists (97.7%) used the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, and 44% performed prognosis estimations in all patients. The main reason not to estimate prognosis was lack of accuracy (20.9%) and of additional benefit (11.6%). In addition, clinical, laboratory, or pathologic factors were used by 89.5% of the urologists and biomarkers by 16.3%. Preoperative models were used by 20.9%, postoperative models by 38.4%, and metastatic models by 38.4%. The Raj and Motzer models were the most used in preoperative and metastatic settings, while no predominance among the different postoperative models was seen. The most important reasons to skip the use of models were lack of additional value'' and lack of familiarity'' reported by 30.2% and 27.9% of the responders, respectively. Conclusions: The TNM is the mainstay for assessing prognosis in RCC. Our data indicate that penetration of prognostic systems is, at most, moderate, suggesting limited use outside original developmental settings. On the contrary, clinical, laboratory, and pathologic factors are used by almost all urologists for prognosis estimations. The most important reason not to use models is the lack of additional value.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipCure for Cancer Foundationen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors thank the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society for providing the sample addresses. This study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from the Cure for Cancer Foundation.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/end.2012.0654
dc.identifier.endpage799en_US
dc.identifier.issn0892-7790
dc.identifier.issn1557-900X
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid23379666en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84878576835en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage790en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0654
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/13377
dc.identifier.volume27en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000321288700023en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMary Ann Liebert, Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Endourologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[Keyword Not Available]en_US
dc.titlePrognostic Models and Factors for Patients with Renal-Cell Carcinoma: A Survey on Their Use Among Urologistsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu