Positive surgical margins after partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Results from Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System database.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
420 Background: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the standard of care for small renal masses (SRMs) whenever feasible. The occurrence of a positive surgical margin (PSM) on a pathological specimen is not uncommon and an ideal management is unknown. We conducted this study to examine the rate of PSM, predictors of PSM and their oncological outcomes after PN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) database. Methods: We accessed the prospectively maintained CKCis database for 1066 patients who underwent PN for RCC in major academic centers all across Canada. Demographics, clinical, pathological and follow-up data were noted for patients with PSM and negative surgical margins (NSM). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of PSM. Results: Out of 1066 patients, 59 (5.5%) had PSM, 928 (87%) had NSM and records of 79 (7.4%) patients were not available. Mean patient age was 61 years and 59 years in the PSM and NSM group respectively, and in each group 63% of the patients were males. Mean tumor size was 3.6cm (range 1.1 – 9.5) and 3.3cm (range 0.5 – 16.2) in PSM and NSM group respectively. PSM group had 5 (8%) grade 1, 28 (47%) grade 2, 16 (27%) grade 3 and 5 (8%) grade 4 tumors as compared to 127 (14%), 458 (50%), 207 (23%) and 27 (3%) respectively in NSM group. Four (6.7%) patients from the PSM group and 49 (5.3%) patients from the NSM group had local and/or systemic progression of disease. There were two cancer specific deaths in NSM group and none in PSM group. Fifty two (88%) and 861 (93%) patients were alive at mean follow-up of 18.5 (range 0 – 91.7) and 28.9 months (range 0 – 315.5) in PSM and NSM group respectively. For the multivariate logistic regression analysis; Fuhrman grade 4 predicted presence of PSM whereas age, operative technique, tumor size, tumor stage did not. Conclusions: Results from the CKCis database suggest that PSM after PN are common but does not result in adverse oncological outcomes. Presence of Fuhrman grade 4 may be associated with PSM on final pathological specimen.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".