The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating Overall Survival and Competing Risks of Death in Patients With Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma Using a Comprehensive Nomogram
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: Many patients with localized node-negative renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are elderly with competing comorbidities. Their overall survival benefit after surgical treatment is unknown. We reviewed cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to evaluate the impact of kidney cancer versus competing causes of death in patients with localized RCC and develop a comprehensive nomogram to quantitate survival differences. Methods: We identified individuals with localized, surgically treated clear-cell, papillary, or chromophobe RCC in SEER (1988 through 2003). We used Fine and Gray competing risks proportional hazards regressions to predict 5-year probabilities of three competing mortality outcomes: kidney cancer death, other cancer death, and noncancer death. Results: We identified 30,801 cases of localized RCC (median age, 62 years; median tumor size, 4.5 cm). Five-year probabilities of kidney cancer death, other cancer death, and noncancer death were 4%, 7%, and 11%, respectively. Age was strongly predictive of mortality and most predictive of nonkidney cancer deaths (P < .001). Increasing tumor size was related to death from RCC and inversely related to noncancer deaths (P < .001). Racial differences in outcomes were most pronounced for nonkidney cancer deaths (P < .001). Men were more likely to die than women from all causes (P < .002). This nomogram integrates commonly available factors into a useful tool for comparing competing risks of death. Conclusion: Management of localized RCC must consider competing causes of mortality, particularly in elderly populations. Effective decision making requires treatment trade-off calculations. We present a tool to quantitate competing causes of mortality in patients with localized RCC.
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
Cited by
Capitanio, U., & Montorsi, F. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00046-x · Cited by 1,014
Smaldone, M. C., Kutikov, A., Egleston, B. L., Canter, D. J., Viterbo, R., Chen, D. Y. T., Jewett, M. A., Greenberg, R. E., & Uzzo, R. G. (2012) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.26369 · Cited by 405
Self-citationManagement of Small Renal Masses: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline
Finelli, A., Ismaila, N., Bro, B., Durack, J., Eggener, S., Evans, A., Gill, I., Graham, D., Huang, W., Jewett, M. A. S., et al. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.69.9645 · Cited by 367
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kutikov, A., Egleston, B. L., Wong, Y.-N., & Uzzo, R. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2010-01-10
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 311-317
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2145113844
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evaluating Overall Survival and Competing Risks of Death in Patients With Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma Using a Comprehensive Nomogram. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2009.22.4816
- The paper
- Kutikov, A., Egleston, B. L., Wong, Y.-N., & Uzzo, R. G. (2010). Evaluating Overall Survival and Competing Risks of Death in Patients With Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma Using a Comprehensive Nomogram. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.22.4816
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.