Laparoscopic cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To critically analyse the results of laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as phase III evidence supports cytoreductive nephrectomy before immunotherapy, and there is an overall shift towards minimally invasive renal surgery for this disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since October 2000, 22 patients were treated by laparoscopic cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic RCC (group 1). All patients had radiological evidence of metastatic disease, with biopsy confirmation in 10. To put the results into perspective, 25 consecutive contemporary patients with large organ-confined nonmetastatic RCC (>7 cm, clinical stage T2) undergoing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (group 2) were compared retrospectively. The baseline demographics were comparable between the groups. RESULTS: The mean tumour size was 8 cm in group 1 and 9.6 cm in group 2 (P = 0.07). Variables during and after surgery were comparable between the groups, with a mean operative duration of 3.1 vs 3.2 h (P = 0.82), blood loss of 285 vs 308 mL (P = 0.79), complications in two vs eight (P = 0.08), morphine sulphate equivalent requirements of 51.7 vs 44.1 mg (P = 0.1) and a median length of hospital stay of 1.7 vs 1.6 days (P = 0.68). In group 1 the median (range) time to immunotherapy was 35 (13-136) days. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic cytoreductive nephrectomy is safe and effective in selected patients. Currently the procedure is offered to candidates eligible for immunotherapy and with tumours of < or = 15 cm, and no evidence of adjacent organ invasion or inferior vena caval thrombus. Significant perihilar adenopathy and numerous parasitic vessels can increase the complexity of the surgery. Adequate laparoscopic experience is necessary.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".