Assessment of intravascular granulomas in testicular seminomas and their association with tumour relapse and dissemination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: First, to determine the frequency of intravascular granulomas (IVGs) in seminomas and assess for the presence of entrapped seminoma cells. Second, to identify the relationship of this unusual form of vascular space invasion with tumour relapse and/or dissemination. METHODS: 86 cases of seminoma were reviewed to identify IVGs. Immunostaining for OCT3/4 and CD68 was performed. Pathological stage, presence of conventional vascular and rete testis invasion, parenchymal granulomas and follow-up were recorded. Multivariable analysis incorporating tumour size, vascular invasion (conventional granulomas and IVGs) and rete testis invasion was performed. RESULTS: IVGs were identified in 13 cases (13/86). CD68 confirmed histiocytes in all cases. OCT3/4 identified tumour cells in 9/13 seminomas. 27 patients had disease progression with either dissemination at presentation (n=11) or relapse (n=16). Of these 27 patients, 8 had IVG (29.6%). By comparison, 6 of 57 clinical stage 1 seminomas that did not relapse had IVG (10.53%). Multivariable analysis revealed that no single parameter was statistically significant at predicting tumour relapse and/or dissemination (size: HR 1.65; CI 0.71 to 3.82, p=0.24, rete testis invasion: HR 1.04; CI 0.48 to 2.26, p=0.92, lymphovascular space invasion/IVG: HR 1.62; CI 0.65 to 4.01, p=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: IVGs may represent a previously unrecognised form of vascular space invasion in seminomas. Studies on larger cohorts are needed to demonstrate its clinical value.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".