Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer after Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy: Long-Term Follow-Up
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of metastatic disease in longer-term follow-up of patients undergoing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with morcellation for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We present the findings at follow-up at 13.5 to 70 months (mean 33.4 months) of 57 previously reported patients. Three, all of whom initially had clinical stage N0M0 disease, were found to have metastases. One, who had a clinical stage T3 grade III/IV tumor, developed an asymptomatic recurrence in the renal fossa with associated chest metastasis 14 months postoperatively. The second, who had a clinical stage T2 grade II/IV tumor, developed painful bony lesions and a chest metastasis 20 months postoperatively. The third patient, with a clinical stage T3 grade IV/IV tumor, was found to have a solitary port-side abdominal-wall recurrence with no other evidence of metastatic disease at 25 months. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term follow-up has demonstrated a 5% (3/57) rate of metastases after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. In two of these patients, the course was consistent with the natural history of RCC; however, the third had a port-site recurrence. Thus, it behooves us to be meticulous with our technique and to follow patients closely after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Several suggestions are made to reduce the likelihood of port-site recurrence.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 it