Overall mortality after radical nephrectomy in patients aged over 80 years with renal cancer: A retrospective study on preoperative prognostic factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the overall survival postnephrectomy for renal cancer for patients aged over 80 years, and to identify preoperative prognostic factors that might influence therapeutic strategies. METHODS: In a retrospective study in five French departments of urology, 179 patients aged over 80 years with renal cell carcinoma underwent radical nephrectomy between 1990 and 2011. The following data were collected: age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiology class, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, type of surgery, period of follow-up, survival, death etiology, symptoms, Fuhrman grade and tumor-nodes-metastasis stage. RESULTS: After a 29.6-month follow up, 89 patients (49.7%) died. Death etiologies were: cancer for 46 (52%) patients, immediate or distant perioperative complications for five patients (6%) and three patients (3%) respectively, cardiovascular disease for 16 patients (18%), other cancers for three patients (3%) and unknown for 16 patients (18%). In a multivariate analysis, T-stage, M-stage and Charlson Comorbidity Index were identified as independent prognostic factors. Patients were divided into three groups (good, intermediate and bad prognosis) with significantly different survivals of 91, 36 and 22 months (P < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative data, including T-stage, M-stage and Charlson Comorbidity Index represent significant independent prognostic factors for survival for patients aged over 80 years. These data might help the clinician in selecting the most suitable candidates for radical nephrectomy among elderly patients with renal cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".