The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF RENAL TUMORS 4 CM. OR LESS IN A CONTEMPORARY COHORT
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated a patient cohort with renal tumors 4 cm. or less treated with partial or radical nephrectomy. We compared patient and tumor characteristics, and survival in these 2 groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 670 patients with a median age of 63 years treated surgically for renal cell carcinoma between July 31, 1989 and July 31, 1997. Renal tumors 4.0 cm. or less were noted in 252 patients (38%) who underwent a total of 262 procedures, including 183 radical (70%) and 79 partial (30%) nephrectomies. Ten patients required 2 operations each because of bilateral renal cell carcinoma. Median followup was 40 months. We compared clinicopathological parameters in the partial and radical nephrectomy groups using chi-square or Wilcoxon analysis as appropriate. Survival analysis was determined by the log rank test and Cox regression model. RESULTS: The partial and radical nephrectomy groups were comparable with respect to gender ratio, tumor presentation, histological classification, pathological stage and complication rate. Median tumor size was 2.5 and 3.0 cm. in the partial and radical nephrectomy groups, respectively (p = 0.0001). Resection was incomplete in 1 patient (1.3%) in the partial and none in the radical nephrectomy group. There was no local recurrence after either procedure, and no significant difference in disease specific, disease-free and overall survival (p = 0.98, 0.23 and 0.20, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a small renal tumor have similar perioperative morbidity, pathological stage and outcome regardless of treatment with partial or radical nephrectomy. Therefore, partial nephrectomy remains a safe alternative for tumors of this size.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x · Cited by 39,793
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · Cited by 39,158
Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods
Wilcoxon, F. (1945) · Biometrics Bulletin · doi:10.2307/3001968 · Cited by 15,354
Cited by
Natural history of chronic renal insufficiency after partial and radical nephrectomy
McKiernan, J., Simmons, R., Katz, J., & Russo, P. (2002) · Urology · doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01501-7 · Cited by 533
Self-citationGill, I. S., Aron, M., Gervais, D. A., & Jewett, M. A. S. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcp0910041 · Cited by 406
Metadata
- Authors
- LEE, C. T., KATZ, J., SHI, W., THALER, H. T., REUTER, V. E., & RUSSO, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 163
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 730-736
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2074450945
- Cited by
- 638
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.75
- 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: SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF RENAL TUMORS 4 CM. OR LESS IN A CONTEMPORARY COHORT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67793-2
- The paper
- LEE, C. T., KATZ, J., SHI, W., THALER, H. T., REUTER, V. E., & RUSSO, P. (2000). SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF RENAL TUMORS 4 CM. OR LESS IN A CONTEMPORARY COHORT. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67793-2
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.