Clinicopathologic evaluation of primary vs secondary enucleated unilateral group D retinoblastoma eyes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The risk of tumor spread is the main concern while deciding primary treatment in advanced unilateral retinoblastoma, which presents later with an intact normal eye. Enucleation was recommended as a radical treatment but with newer treatment options such as systemic and intra-arterial chemotherapy. Ocular salvage could be tried in group D eyes with smaller tumors and visual potential. Aim The aim was to assess the histopathologic metastatic risk in primary vs secondary enucleated (trial salvage) unilateral group D eyes. Design Retrospective, noncomparative, single-institution observational case series. Patients and methods All primary and secondary enucleated unilateral group D eyes (June 2012 to December 2018) managed at the pediatric ocular oncology unit, Ophthalmology Department, University of Alexandria. Clinical, radiological, histopathologic, and treatment data were collected. Clinicopathologic correlation was performed to identify the frequency of high-risk histopathologic features (HRHF). Statistical analysis All analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel 2013 software and SPSS software version 17.0. Results Twenty-six eyes were included. Sixteen were primary enucleated and none showed HRHF while 10 were secondary enucleated after failed trial salvage. Timely enucleated secondary cases (6/10) showed no HRHF while delayed secondary enucleation (2/4) was significantly associated with HRHF (P=0.02). All cases are alive with no metastasis after a median follow-up of 5 years. Conclusion Primary and timely secondary enucleation for unilateral group D retinoblastoma eyes are comparable in low metastatic risk and effectivity of tumor control. Controlled discussed trial ocular salvage is safe conditioned by strict timely termination, if necessary.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".