Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 837

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: A stratification tool for prospective clinical trials

Leibovich, Bradley C., Blute, Michael L., Cheville, John C., Lohse, Christine M., Frank, Igor, Kwon, Eugene D., Weaver, Amy L., Parker, Alexander S., Zincke, Horst·2003·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to develop an algorithm to predict progression to metastases after radical nephrectomy for patients with clinically localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to allow stratification of patients for potential adjuvant therapy trials. METHODS: The authors identified 1671 sporadic patients with clinically localized, unilateral clear cell RCC who underwent radical nephrectomy between 1970 and 2000. The clinical features examined included age, gender, smoking history, recent onset hypertension, performance status, and presenting symptoms. The pathologic features examined included surgical margins, tumor stage, regional lymph node status, tumor size, nuclear grade, histologic tumor necrosis, sarcomatoid component, cystic architecture, and multifocality. Metastases free survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was fit to determine associations between the clinical and pathologic features and distant metastases. RESULTS: The median follow‐up was 5.4 years (range, 0–31 years). Metastases occurred in 479 patients at a median of 1.3 years (range, 0–25 years) after nephrectomy. The estimated metastases free survival rates were 86.9% at 1 year, 77.8% at 3 years, 74.1% at 5 years, 70.8% at 7 years, and 67.1% at 10 years. Multivariate analysis showed that the following features were associated with progression to metastases: tumor stage, regional lymph node status, tumor size, nuclear grade, and histologic tumor necrosis (P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clear cell RCC, tumor stage, regional lymph node status, tumor size, nuclear grade, and histologic tumor necrosis showed statistically significant associations with progression to metastatic RCC. The authors present a scoring algorithm based on these features that can be used to predict disease progression after patients undergo radical nephrectomy for clinically localized clear cell RCC. Cancer 2003;97:1663–71. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11234

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.11234

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 837

Metadata

Authors
Leibovich, B. C., Blute, M. L., Cheville, J. C., Lohse, C. M., Frank, I., Kwon, E. D., Weaver, A. L., Parker, A. S., & Zincke, H.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-03-18
Volume
97
Issue
7
Pages
1663-1671
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2069480574
Cited by
837
References
19
FWCI
13.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: A stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.11234
The paper
Leibovich, B. C., Blute, M. L., Cheville, J. C., Lohse, C. M., Frank, I., Kwon, E. D., Weaver, A. L., Parker, A. S., & Zincke, H. (2003). Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: A stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11234

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.