Renal cell carcinoma in children. Prognostic factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcome in childhood renal cell carcinoma and the role of surgical and radiation treatment. METHODS: The records of 21 children with renal cell carcinoma were reviewed, 15 patients treated in the University of Toronto centers from 1959 through to 1997 and 6 patients treated in King Faisal Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 1975 through to 1998. The age was 3-17 (median 13) years. Systematic metastases were present at diagnosis in 5 patients. Regional nodal spread was present in 9 patients and 7 patients had localized disease alone. In the 16 M0 patients, the surgical treatment was radical nephrectomy (14 patients) partial nephrectomy (one patient) and wedge resection (one patient). Postoperative radiation treatment was utilized in 8 (50%) of these patients. RESULTS: The 5 year survival rate for all patients was 52%, and for M0 patients was 70%. No patient with systematic metastases at diagnosis survived beyond 26 months. Four of 7 node negative patients and 8 of 9 node positive patients remained in first complete remission, with the duration of follow up 1-30 (Median 5) years. Seven of 8 M0 patients who did not receive adjuvant radiation therapy continued in first remission (3N0, 2NI, 2N2), compared with 5 of 8 patients who received postoperativeradiation treatment (1 N0, 2 NI, 2 N2). CONCLUSION: The prognosis of localized renal cell carcinoma in childhood may be better than in the adult. Gross complete resection is required for long term survival. Elective postoperativeradiation treatment is not indicated.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".