Testis-sparing surgery: Experience in 13 patients with oncological and functional outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We present oncological and functional outcomes of patients who underwent testis-sparing surgery (TSS). METHODS: Overall, 13 patients were included. Mean patient age was 29.9±12.5 years. In five patients, TSS was performed for sequential bilateral testicular tumours. One patient underwent concurrent left radical orchiectomy and right TSS. In eight patients with normal contralateral testis, seven underwent left and one underwent right TSS. RESULTS: Mean pathological tumour size was 14.6±12.5 mm. Intraoperative frozen section evaluation of the mass was performed in eight patients that revealed benign lesions. No intraoperative tumour bed biopsies were taken in this patient group. Regarding the remaining five patients, intraoperative tumour bed biopsies were taken and testicular intraepithelial neoplasia (TIN) was reported in two (40%) patients; no local testicular radiotherapy was given postoperatively. Tumour pathology was malignant in all but one lesion, including Leydig cell tumour (n=1), seminoma(n=2), embryonal carcinoma (n=1), and adenomatoid tumour (n=1). During 47.2±22.5 months of followup, local recurrence was detected in one patient who underwent radical orchiectomy. No additional local recurrence or systemic metastasis was identified in other patients with malignant lesions. For patients with malignant tumours, of the three patients with a normal preoperative testosterone levels, testosterone level was normal in one patient (with no erectile dysfunction [ED]) and was decreased in two patients (with ED) following TSS. No ED was reported in the nine patients with benign lesions. CONCLUSIONS: In carefully selected cases, TSS appears to be a safe, feasible procedure with adequate cancer control that could preserve sexual function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".