PD53-07 CONDITIONAL RISK OF RELAPSE IN 3,601 PATIENTS MANAGED WITH SURVEILLANCE FOR STAGE I TESTICULAR CANCER
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Penis/Testis/Urethra: Benign Disease & Malignant Disease II1 Apr 2017PD53-07 CONDITIONAL RISK OF RELAPSE IN 3,601 PATIENTS MANAGED WITH SURVEILLANCE FOR STAGE I TESTICULAR CANCER Madhur Nayan, Gedske Daugaard, Michael Jewett, Jakob Lauritsen, Mikkel Bandak, Mette Saksoe Mortensen, Maria Gry Gundgaard Kier, Philippe Bedard, Aaron Hansen, Padraig Warde, Peter Chung, Eshetu Atenafu, and Robert Hamilton Madhur NayanMadhur Nayan More articles by this author , Gedske DaugaardGedske Daugaard More articles by this author , Michael JewettMichael Jewett More articles by this author , Jakob LauritsenJakob Lauritsen More articles by this author , Mikkel BandakMikkel Bandak More articles by this author , Mette Saksoe MortensenMette Saksoe Mortensen More articles by this author , Maria Gry Gundgaard KierMaria Gry Gundgaard Kier More articles by this author , Philippe BedardPhilippe Bedard More articles by this author , Aaron HansenAaron Hansen More articles by this author , Padraig WardePadraig Warde More articles by this author , Peter ChungPeter Chung More articles by this author , Eshetu AtenafuEshetu Atenafu More articles by this author , and Robert HamiltonRobert Hamilton More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.2404AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The baseline risk of relapse following orchiectomy is approximately 15% in patients with clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma and 30% in patients with CSI non-seminoma (NSGCT). Surveillance has been widely adopted for initial management. However, the baseline relapse risk does not reflect how prognosis may change the longer a patient has survived without relapse. This dynamic relapse risk is referred to as conditional risk of relapse and can provide important prognostic information for physicians and patients. METHODS We performed a retrospective review of patients managed with surveillance for CSI testicular cancer in Denmark and the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, Canada, between 1980 and 2014. Conditional risk of relapse was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. We stratified patients based on validated risk factors for relapse. We used linear regression to determine trends of conditional risk over time. RESULTS We identified 3,601 patients of which 2,462 (68.6%) had seminoma and 1,139 (31.6%) had NSGCT. Median follow-up in those without relapse was 12.1 (interquartile range 8.0 to 19.5) years and 9.4 (interquartile range 5.1 to 17.1) years in seminoma and NSGCT, respectively. At orchiectomy, the baseline risk of relapse at 5 years was 53.2%, 22.1%, 21.2%, and 12.4% in patients with high-risk NSGCT (CSIB with pure embryonal carcinoma), low-risk NSGCT (CSIA without pure embryonal carcinoma), seminoma with tumour size ≥ 3cm, and seminoma with tumour size less than 3cm, respectively. The conditional relapse risk decreased over time in all groups (p<0.001), but did so at different rates (Figures 1 and 2). For patients without relapse at 3 years, the corresponding risk of relapse within the next 5 years was 6.6%, 0.9%, 3.5%, and 2.0%, respectively (Figures 1 and 2). CONCLUSIONS Our pooled study is the largest to date to provide conditional risk of relapse for patients with CSI testicular cancer on surveillance. These results can be used to provide patients with prognostic information and tailor surveillance protocols to reduce the intensity of follow-up in patients with a low risk of future relapse. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e1042-e1043 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Madhur Nayan More articles by this author Gedske Daugaard More articles by this author Michael Jewett More articles by this author Jakob Lauritsen More articles by this author Mikkel Bandak More articles by this author Mette Saksoe Mortensen More articles by this author Maria Gry Gundgaard Kier More articles by this author Philippe Bedard More articles by this author Aaron Hansen More articles by this author Padraig Warde More articles by this author Peter Chung More articles by this author Eshetu Atenafu More articles by this author Robert Hamilton More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».