Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 536

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 access
Karakiewicz, Pierre I., Briganti, Alberto, Chun, Felix K.-H., Trinh, Quoc-Dien, Perrotte, Paul, Ficarra, Vincenzo, Cindolo, Luca, De La Taille, Alexandre, Tostain, Jacques, Mulders, Peter F.A., Salomon, Laurent, Zigeuner, Richard, Prayer-Galetti, Tommaso, Chautard, Denis, Valeri, Antoine, Lechevallier, Eric, Descotes, Jean-Luc, Lang, Herve, Mejean, Arnaud, Patard, Jean-Jacques·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2006.06.1218

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 536

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.