Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: long-term oncologic outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was first described in 1992, and has become more commonly practiced at certain centers. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection may be less morbid than open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, but more costly. Controversy exists, however, regarding the oncologic adequacy of the procedure. The published literature regarding the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is reviewed herein. RECENT FINDINGS: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection has not been as widely adopted as other laparoscopic procedures for genitourinary malignancy. There have only been seven publications in the last 3 years, often coming from the same centers. Recently there has been a change in practice with a greater effort to perform therapeutic laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection and not simply a staging procedure. Adjuvant chemotherapy is no longer routinely offered to all patients with positive nodes. SUMMARY: The impressive cure rate and decreasing morbidity associated with conventional open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection are difficult to improve upon. While on par with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection series, the current oncologic outcomes are difficult to attribute to successful laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection alone. Most patients with viable tumor in the retroperitoneal lymph node dissection specimen received chemotherapy. Thus, we must await follow-up of the patients who declined adjuvant chemotherapy after laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection or the results of more recent initiatives with laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection alone.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".