The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multi-Institutional Validation of a New Renal Cancer–Specific Survival Nomogram
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: We tested the hypothesis that the prediction of renal cancer–specific survival can be improved if traditional predictor variables are used within a prognostic nomogram. Patients and Methods: Two cohorts of patients treated with either radical or partial nephrectomy for renal cortical tumors were used: one (n = 2,530) for nomogram development and for internal validation (200 bootstrap resamples), and a second (n = 1,422) for external validation. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses modeled the 2002 TNM stages, tumor size, Fuhrman grade, histologic subtype, local symptoms, age, and sex. The accuracy of the nomogram was compared with an established staging scheme. Results: Cancer-specific mortality was observed in 598 (23.6%) patients, whereas 200 (7.9%) died as a result of other causes. Follow-up ranged from 0.1 to 286 months (median, 38.8 months). External validation of the nomogram at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years after nephrectomy revealed predictive accuracy of 87.8%, 89.2%, 86.7%, and 88.8%, respectively. Conversely, the alternative staging scheme predicting at 2 and 5 years was less accurate, as evidenced by 86.1% (P = .006) and 83.9% (P = .02) estimates. Conclusion: The new nomogram is more contemporary, provides predictions that reach further in time and, compared with its alternative, which predicts at 2 and 5 years, generates 3.1% and 2.8% more accurate predictions, respectively.
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
A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk
Fine, J. P., & Gray, R. J. (1999) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144 · Cited by 14,290
Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals
GRAMBSCH, P. M., & THERNEAU, T. M. (1994) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/81.3.515 · Cited by 5,885
Cited by
Liang, W., Zhang, L., Jiang, G., Wang, Q., Liu, L., Liu, D., Wang, Z., Zhu, Z., Deng, Q., Xiong, X., et al. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2014.56.6661 · Cited by 649
Hakimi, A. A., Ostrovnaya, I., Reva, B., Schultz, N., Chen, Y.-B., Gonen, M., Liu, H., Takeda, S., Voss, M. H., Tickoo, S. K., et al. (2013) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-3886 · Cited by 357
Metadata
- Authors
- Karakiewicz, P. I., Briganti, A., Chun, F. K.-H., Trinh, Q.-D., Perrotte, P., Ficarra, V., Cindolo, L., De La Taille, A., Tostain, J., Mulders, P. F. A., Salomon, L., Zigeuner, R., Prayer-Galetti, T., Chautard, D., Valeri, A., Lechevallier, E., Descotes, J.-L., Lang, H., Mejean, A., & Patard, J.-J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2007-04-10
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1316-1322
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2172050766
- Cited by
- 536
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Multi-Institutional Validation of a New Renal Cancer–Specific Survival Nomogram. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.06.1218
- The paper
- Karakiewicz, P. I., Briganti, A., Chun, F. K.-H., Trinh, Q.-D., Perrotte, P., Ficarra, V., Cindolo, L., De La Taille, A., Tostain, J., Mulders, P. F. A., Salomon, L., Zigeuner, R., Prayer-Galetti, T., Chautard, D., Valeri, A., Lechevallier, E., Descotes, J.-L., Lang, H., Mejean, A., & Patard, J.-J. (2007). Multi-Institutional Validation of a New Renal Cancer–Specific Survival Nomogram. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.06.1218
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.