Is testis-sparing surgery safe in small testicular masses? Results of a multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to evaluate benign and malignant lesions and testicular intraepithelial neoplasia (TIN) in the neighbouring normal-appearing testis tissue in men who underwent radical orchiectomy for testicular mass with a pathologic tumour size of ≤3cm. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicentre study, data of 252 patients from 11 different institutions were included. Patients were divided into three groups based on tumour size: Group 1 (0-1 cm; n=35), Group 2 (1.1-2cm; n=99), and Group 3 (2.1-3 cm; n=118). Benign lesions and TIN were sought in the neighbouring testicular tissue and compared between groups. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 32.3 years. Benign lesions were reported in 54.3%, 33.3%, and 14.4% of Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p<0.05 between groups). TIN was detected in 20%, 42.4%, and 41.5% of Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p<0.05 for Group 1 vs. Groups 2 and 3; p>0.05 for Groups 2 vs. 3). Multifocality was detected in 8.6%, 4%, and 0% of Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p<0.05 for both Group 1 vs. Group 3 and for Group 2 vs. Group 3; p>0.05 for Group 1 vs. Group 2). A tumour cutoff size of 1.5 cm was found to be significant for detecting benign tumour. TIN and multifocality rates were similar in patients with a tumour size of ≤1.5 vs. >1.5 cm (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Benign lesions and TIN in the neighbouring testis were significantly decreased and multifocality was increased in patients with a tumour mass size of ≤1 cm. Testis-sparing surgery should be performed with caution and a safety rim of normal tissue should also be excised.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".