Assessment of Meet-URO and CANLPH Prognostic Models in Metastatic RCC: Insights from a Single-Institution Cohort Predominantly Treated with TKIs

<b>Background/Objectives</b><b>:</b> Accurate prognostic assessment remains crucial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), especially as treatment options have expanded beyond vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapies to include immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and ICI-TKI combinations. The widely used IMDC classification shows important limitations in the modern therapeutic era, highlighting the need for complementary prognostic tools. In this context, the Meet-URO and CANLPH scores-incorporating clinical, inflammatory, and nutritional markers-have emerged as promising alternatives. To evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of the Meet-URO and CANLPH scoring systems in a real-world mRCC cohort predominantly treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy due to limited access to ICI-based combinations. <b>Methods:</b> This retrospective single-center study included 112 patients with mRCC. The Meet-URO score was calculated for all patients, while the CANLPH score was assessed in 56 patients with complete laboratory data. CAR, NLR, and PHR were computed using baseline pre-treatment measurements. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), the latter defined exclusively for first-line therapy, were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Correlations between inflammatory markers and survival outcomes were analyzed using Spearman's rho. <b>Results</b>: Meet-URO demonstrated clear prognostic stratification across all five categories, with the most favorable outcomes in score group 2 and progressively poorer OS and PFS in higher-risk groups. CANLPH also showed meaningful survival discrimination, with the highest inflammatory group (score 3) exhibiting markedly reduced OS and PFS. CAR was the strongest individual predictor of survival, while NLR and PHR showed weaker associations. <b>Conclusions</b>: Both Meet-URO and CANLPH provide strong, complementary prognostic information in mRCC, even in a cohort largely treated with TKI monotherapy. Their integration into routine risk assessment may enhance clinical decision-making, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16030428
Primary Topic
Renal cell carcinoma treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessment of Meet-URO and CANLPH Prognostic Models in Metastatic RCC: Insights from a Single-Institution Cohort Predominantly Treated with TKIs

Omer F. Kuzu, Berkan Karadurmuş, Musa Barış Aykan, Deniz Bozdağ et al.
Diagnostics
Renal cell carcinoma treatment
article

Assessment of Meet-URO and CANLPH Prognostic Models in Metastatic RCC: Insights from a Single-Institution Cohort Predominantly Treated with TKIs

Omer F. Kuzu, Berkan Karadurmuş, Musa Barış Aykan, Deniz Bozdağ, Emre Hafızoğlu, Esmanur Kaplan Tüzün, Hüseyin Atacan, Nebi Batuhan Kanat, Selahattin Bedir, Nurlan Mammadzada, Nuri Karadurmuş, Gizem Yıldırım, İsmail Ertürk
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b><b>:</b> Accurate prognostic assessment remains crucial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), especially as treatment options have expanded beyond vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapies to include immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and ICI-TKI combinations. The widely used IMDC classification shows important limitations in the modern therapeutic era, highlighting the need for complementary prognostic tools. In this context, the Meet-URO and CANLPH scores-incorporating clinical, inflammatory, and nutritional markers-have emerged as promising alternatives. To evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of the Meet-URO and CANLPH scoring systems in a real-world mRCC cohort predominantly treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy due to limited access to ICI-based combinations. <b>Methods:</b> This retrospective single-center study included 112 patients with mRCC. The Meet-URO score was calculated for all patients, while the CANLPH score was assessed in 56 patients with complete laboratory data. CAR, NLR, and PHR were computed using baseline pre-treatment measurements. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), the latter defined exclusively for first-line therapy, were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Correlations between inflammatory markers and survival outcomes were analyzed using Spearman's rho. <b>Results</b>: Meet-URO demonstrated clear prognostic stratification across all five categories, with the most favorable outcomes in score group 2 and progressively poorer OS and PFS in higher-risk groups. CANLPH also showed meaningful survival discrimination, with the highest inflammatory group (score 3) exhibiting markedly reduced OS and PFS. CAR was the strongest individual predictor of survival, while NLR and PHR showed weaker associations. <b>Conclusions</b>: Both Meet-URO and CANLPH provide strong, complementary prognostic information in mRCC, even in a cohort largely treated with TKI monotherapy. Their integration into routine risk assessment may enhance clinical decision-making, particularly in resource-limited settings.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(3)
Çankırı Karatekin University (TR), State Hospital (GB), Gülhane Askerî Tıp Akademisi (TR), Sivas State Hospital (TR), Afyon Kocatepe University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Renal cell carcinoma treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.