Stage one seminoma: Evidence based guidelines for follow up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4546 Background: Several management strategies are used following ochiectomy for stage one seminoma (SOS) of the testis. The aim of this systematic review (SR) is to provide evidence based guidelines for the follow-up (FU) schedule for each strategy regarding investigations required, frequency of assessment and overall duration. Methods: A SR of all prospective studies in SOS published since 1980 in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database was performed in November 2005. Data was extracted regarding the time, location and method of detection of first relapses, duration of FU, relapse free rates, and numbers of patients at risk. Five strategies were identified: Surveillance (S), Extended-field Radiotherapy (EFRT), Para-aortic Radiotherapy (PART) and either one (C1) or two (C2) cycles of Carboplatin chemotherapy. For each strategy Kaplan-Meier relapse free estimates were used to calculate weighted mean cumulative hazards of relapse over time. These were used to calculate yearly weighted mean relapse hazards. Weights used were based on numbers of patients at risk in each trial. Results: Fifteen prospective studies with a total of 5277 patients were identified. Actuarial relapse data was available in 4185 (79.3%) patients and 4850 (91.9%) had the location of relapse documented. Method of relapse detection was infrequently reported. The median time to relapse with all strategies was 12–16 months. Annual hazard ratios for relapse decreased with increasing length of FU and relapse location depended on the strategy used ( Table ). Conclusions: 1. The investigations performed need to reflect locations at risk of relapse. This should include computerised tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis for Survillance and adjuvant Carboplatin, with CT of the pelvis only for Para-aortic RT. 2. Long term FU data on patients treated with Carboplatin is not available, and further FU is necessary. 3. Frequency of FU should reflect the annual hazard of relapse. We suggest 3 times per year when the risk is >5%, 2 times per year when the risk is 1–5%, and annually until the risk is <0.3%. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.028 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".