PD12-07 PREDICTORS OF PATHOLOGICALLY NODE POSITIVE DISEASE IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING RETROPERITONEAL LYMPH NODE DISSECTION (RPLND) FOR RENAL CELL CARCINOMA (RCC): RESULTS FROM THE CANADIAN KIDNEY CANCER COLLABORATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:We investigated the influence of perinephric fat invasion (PFI) and sinus fat invasion (SFI) on the oncologic outcomes after radical nephrectomy (RN) or partial nephrectomy (PN) for pathologic T3a renal cell carcinoma (RCC).METHODS: Among 3192 patients who underwent RN or PN in our institution between 1998 and 2012, 390 patients were diagnosed with pathologic T3a RCC.Of this cohort, we excluded nodal or distant metastatic RCC, RCC with renal vein thrombosis, and RCC with perinephric and sinus fat invasion.Finally, 107 patients of PFI group and 58 patients of SFI group were included in this study.All patients underwent RN or PN.We compared the clinico-pathological characteristics and oncological outcomes between two groups, and factors predicting disease progression or survival were assessed.RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status classification, and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between two groups.The proportion of patients who underwent RN was significantly higher in the SFI group than PFI group (91.4% vs. 72.9%,p¼0.005).Mean maximal tumor diameter in the patients of SFI group was also longer than PFI group (6.5cm vs. 5.9cm, p¼0.013).Tumor laterality, Fuhrman grade, histology, and presence of lymphovascular invasion were not significantly different between two groups.In Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no significantly difference in 3-year disease progression-1free survival (PFS; 83.0% vs. 75.3%,p¼0.643), 3-year cancer-specific survival (CSS; 85.6% vs. 93.1%,p¼0.373), and 3-year overall survival (OS; 82.7% vs. 89.9%,p¼0.658) between PFI and SFI group.In multivariate analysis, longer maximal tumor diameter was an independent predicting factor of shorter PFS (HR: 1.17, p¼0.006) and CSS (HR: 1.19, p¼0.033).The predictors of shorter OS were older age (HR: 1.03, p¼0.022) and longer maximal tumor diameter (HR: 1.13, p¼0.021).CONCLUSIONS: Sinus fat invasion compared to perinephric fat invasion was not associated with an increased risk of disease recurrence, cancer-specific death, or overall death.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".