Risk‐adjusted proposal for >60 months follow up after surgical treatment of organ‐confined renal cell carcinoma according to life expectancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the long-term oncological outcome of organ-confined (<pT3) renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We identified 889 patients with complete long-term follow-up data, who had been surgically treated for renal cell carcinoma (<T3) at our institution between 1976 and 2009. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess the incidence and time interval of recurrence defined as local recurrences or metastases. We further compared patients who had tumor progression before or after 60 months. RESULTS: After a median follow-up period of 74.33 months (range 3-329 months), 44 patients (4.9%) had disease recurrence. A total of 38.6% of the recurrences occurred after 60 months; 76.2% of patients had distant metastases and 23.8% of patients had local recurrences. In patients with low-grade (G1) and low-stage (pT1a) tumors, there was a trend to develop recurrence or metastases after longer intervals. Patients with lung metastasis and patients with multiple metastatic locations developed these metastases earlier than patients with bone metastasis. The risk of dying of other causes correlated with age, but the time interval to metastases did not. CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines recommend a follow-up period of 60 months after surgical treatment of organ-confined renal cell carcinoma. Our data shows that one-third of recurrences of
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".