Survival of patients with nonmetastatic pT3 renal tumours: a matched comparison of laparoscopic vs open radical nephrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the oncological outcome of patients with pT3 renal tumours treated either by laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) or open RN (ORN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective review of a multi-institutional database, we identified 1003 patients with a T3N0M0 renal tumour and with no vena caval invasion. Sixty-five patients treated by LRN were matched with up to four patients treated by ORN. Exact matches were made for age, gender, tumour size, perirenal fat invasion, renal vein invasion, and histological subtype. Following the matching process there were 44 patients treated by LRN and 135 by ORN. Qualitative and continuous variables were compared using chi-square and independent-sample t-tests, respectively. Differences in survival were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox regression model was used to test the effect of variables on survival. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable for age (P = 0.4), gender, tumour size (P = 0.4), tumour grade (P = 0.25) and histological subtype (P = 0.45). The mean follow-up was longer in the ORN group (55 vs 28 months, P < 0.001). There was no difference in survival between the ORN and LRN groups in the whole T3 population (P = 0.7), in those with perirenal fat invasion (P = 0.9), or in the subset with renal vein invasion (P = 0.31). In univariate analysis, the only predictor for death from cancer was tumour grade (P = 0.05). In multivariate analysis, no variable was significantly associated with cancer survival. CONCLUSIONS: LRN has no adverse effect on cancer survival compared to ORN in patients with microscopic T3 renal cancer. Additional prospective evaluation is warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".