MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Clinical outcomes of late relapse in stage I seminoma.

2015· article· en· W2600197643 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Hosni, Padraig Warde, Philippe L. Bédard, Michael A.S. Jewett, Robert J. Hamilton, Malcolm J. Moore, Roger Huang, Martin O’Malley, Joan Sweet, Peter Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeminomaRadiation therapyStage (stratigraphy)ChemotherapyInternal medicineSurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4537 Background: This study aimed to identify characteristics associated with late relapse (LR) in stage I seminoma and determine clinical outcomes according to timing of relapse. Methods: Between 1981 and 2011, 949 stage I seminoma patients were managed at our institution. Of these, 254 were treated with adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) and 695 were managed by active surveillance (AS). LR was defined as tumor recurrence more than 2 years after orchiectomy. Treatment at relapse was dependent on initial treatment and disease extent at relapse. Progression free survival (PFS) from end of treatment of first relapse and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Results: At median follow-up of 10.9 years, 129 patients relapsed at median of 12 months; 14 after aRT and 115 on AS. There was no significant difference between the proportion of patients with LR for aRT (3/14; 25%) vs. AS (29/115; 21%) with no specific clinicopathological features were associated with LR. Paraaortic node(s) was the most common relapse site in AS patients either in LR (n = 28, 97%; median size: 2.1 cm) or early relapse (n = 79, 92%; median size: 2 cm), whereas in aRT patients; all LR were in mediastinum, and early relapse was inguinal (n = 4), scrotal (n = 3) and distant (n = 4). Most LR occurred between 2-3 years (n = 14, 44%; 13 of them were AS patients), and 8 of 9 patients who had LR beyond 5 years were on AS. Treatment of first relapse for aRT group consisted of chemotherapy (n = 10), RT (n = 3) and surgery (n = 1); and for the AS group: RT (n = 87), chemotherapy (n = 26) and surgery (n = 2).Only 1 aRT patient developed second relapse. Nine AS patients had second relapse (7 after RT and 2 after chemotherapy) at a median (range) time of 13 (2–48) months. Second relapse was predominantly distant (9/10), however all were successfully salvaged with chemotherapy. The 5-year PFS from end of treatment of first relapse for the whole, aRT and AS groups were similar, 93%. Among AS group, there was no significant difference between early and late relapse in 5-year PFS (91% vs 100%, p= 0.1) or 10-year OS (96%, for both). Conclusions: In stage I seminoma, the extent and pattern of LR is similar to that for early relapse. For AS patients, selective use of RT/chemotherapy for relapse results in excellent outcomes regardless of timing of relapse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.249
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicTesticular diseases and treatments→French-language works237,207→