↓ Skip to main content

Epidemiology and screening for renal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge


53 Dimensions

Readers on

107 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Epidemiology and screening for renal cancer
Published in
World Journal of Urology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00345-018-2286-7
Pubmed ID

Sabrina H. Rossi, Tobias Klatte, Juliet Usher-Smith, Grant D. Stewart


The widespread use of abdominal imaging has affected the epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Despite this, over 25% of individuals with RCC have evidence of metastases at presentation. Screening for RCC has the potential to downstage the disease. We performed a literature review on the epidemiology of RCC and evidence base regarding screening. Furthermore, contemporary RCC epidemiology data was obtained for the United Kingdom and trends in age-standardised rates of incidence and mortality were analysed by annual percentage change statistics and joinpoint regression. The incidence of RCC in the UK increased by 3.1% annually from 1993 through 2014. Urinary dipstick is an inadequate screening tool due to low sensitivity and specificity. It is unlikely that CT would be recommended for population screening due to cost, radiation dose and increased potential for other incidental findings. Screening ultrasound has a sensitivity and specificity of 82-83% and 98-99%, respectively; however, accuracy is dependent on tumour size. No clinically validated urinary nor serum biomarkers have been identified. Major barriers to population screening include the relatively low prevalence of the disease, the potential for false positives and over-diagnosis of slow-growing RCCs. Individual patient risk-stratification based on a combination of risk factors may improve screening efficiency and minimise harms by identifying a group at high risk of RCC. The incidence of RCC is increasing. The optimal screening modality and target population remain to be elucidated. An analysis of the benefits and harms of screening for patients and society is warranted.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Other 10 9%
Student > Master 8 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 31 29%