Classification tree for the prediction of malignant disease and the prediction of non-diagnostic biopsies in patients with small renal masses
Résumé fourni par la source
INTRODUCTION: Preoperative prediction of benign vs. malignant small renal masses (SRMs) remains a challenge. This study: 1) validates our previously published classification tree (CT) with an external cohort; 2) creates a new CT with the combined cohort; and 3) evaluates the RENAL and PADUA scoring systems for prediction of malignancy. METHODS: This study includes a total of 818 patients with renal masses; 395 underwent surgical resection and 423 underwent biopsy. A CT to predict benign disease was developed using patient and tumour characteristics from the 709 eligible participants. Our CT is based on four parameters: tumour volume, symptoms, gender, and symptomatology. CART modelling was also used to determine if RENAL and PADUA scoring could predict malignancy. RESULTS: When externally validated with the surgical cohort, the predictive accuracy of the old CT dropped. However, by combining the cohorts and creating a new CT, the predictive accuracy increased from 74% to 87% (95% confidence interval 0.84-0.89). RENAL and PADUA score alone were not predictive of malignancy. One limitation was the lack of available histological data from the biopsy series. CONCLUSIONS: The validated old CT and new combined-cohort CT have a predictive value greater than currently published nomograms and single-biopsy cohorts. Overall, RENAL and PADUA scores were not able to predict malignancy.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Classification tree for the prediction of malignant disease and the prediction of non-diagnostic biopsies in patients with small renal masses
- Date Crossref
- 25/09/2018
- Éditeur
- Canadian Urological Association Journal
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.