Cancer‐specific and non‐cancer‐related mortality rates in European patients with T1a and T1b renal cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine cancer-specific and non-cancer-related mortality rates in 451 patients with T1a-bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with either radical or partial nephrectomy (RN or PN) in Europe. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1987 and 2007, 451 patients with T1a-bN0M0 RCC were treated for histologically confirmed RCC with RN or PN at one of seven participating European institutions. The preoperative American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score was available for all patients and was used to control for baseline comorbidities. The preoperative glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study group equation. We used univariate and multivariate competing-risks regression analyses to test the effect of the ASA score, GFR, T stage (T1a vs T1b) and nephrectomy type (RN or PN) on RCC-specific mortality and non-RCC-related mortality. RESULTS: In patients with T1a-b RCC cancer- specific mortality was unaffected by stage, nephrectomy type or GFR. Conversely, non-RCC-related mortality was strongly affected by the ASA score and GFR. Unlike in a previous report, nephrectomy type did not affect non-RCC-related mortality. This lack of significance relative to RN may stem from the relatively high rate of PN use in the present series. CONCLUSION: PN or RN virtually eliminate the risk of cancer-specific mortality in patients with T1a-b RCC. Poor preoperative ASA score and impaired renal function appear to represent relative contra-indications to surgical management of T1a-b lesions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".