Treatment of angiomyolipoma at a tertiary care centre: the decision between surgery and angioembolization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angiomyolipoma (AML) is a benign renal neoplasm. First-line therapy includes renal preserving surgery or angioembolization (RAE), both with good outcomes in isolated studies. However, there are no comparative randomized trials and no clinical guidelines to help clinicians decide between these treatment modalities. Our study examines the patterns of AML treatment at a tertiary care centre to evaluate how local urologists have been treating this disease. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all AMLs treated at the Vancouver General Hospital (Vancouver, BC, Canada) over the past 10 years with either RAE or surgical excision. Searches were performed of the radiology and pathology dictation systems, using the following keywords: AML, angiomyolipoma, angioembolization, embolization, surgery, partial nephrectomy and nephrectomy. RESULTS: At our institution, more AMLs were treated by surgery than angioembolization (42 vs. 17 cases). Angioembolization was more often chosen for cases of multifocal AML (35% vs. 7%) and acute hemorrhage (50% vs. 14%). In the angioembolization cases, particles were the embolic agent of choice (used 40% of the time). CONCLUSIONS: Angioembolization allows rapid patient stabilization in cases of acute hemorrhage, and provides good renal preservation in cases of multifocal AML. It may also be preferred in large masses when partial nephrectomy is not feasible. Surgery should be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty or complex vascular anatomy not amenable to RAE. Prospective randomized studies are needed to compare RAE and surgery to better define their indications in sporadic AML.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".