MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132861171 · doi:10.1002/bco2.77

Outcomes of organ‐sparing surgery for adult testicular tumors: A systematic review of the literature

2021· review· en· W3132861171 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Ory, Udi Blankstein, Daniel González, Aditya Sathe, Joshua White, Carlos Delgado, John Reynolds, Keith Jarvi, Ranjith Ramasamy

Bibliographic record

VenueBJUI Compass · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINESystematic reviewMeta-analysisCINAHLCochrane LibraryGerm cell tumorsGynecologySurgeryInternal medicinePsychological interventionChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review on the effects of testicular sparing surgery (TSS) on the oncological, functional, and hormonal outcomes of adults with testicular tumors. METHODS: A literature search was performed after PROSPERO registration (CRD42020200842) and reported in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methods. We conducted a systematic search of Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO/ICTRP from inception to November 20, 2020. Manuscripts and published abstracts were included if they involved testis-sparing surgery (TSS) and contained data on any outcomes related to fertility, hormonal parameters, or oncological control, or if they evaluated surgical technique. RESULTS: Our initial search yielded 3,370 manuscripts, with 269 of these screened for full-text eligibility. After our exclusion criteria were applied, 32 studies were included in the final analysis. Oncological outcomes were obtained from 12 studies (average follow-up 57.8 months), functional data from 26 studies (average follow-up 49.6 months), fertility information from 10 studies (average follow-up 55.8 months), and data on nonpalpable tumors from 11 studies (average follow-up 32.1 months). Oncological control appears to be excellent in studies that reported these outcomes. Presence of germ cell neoplasia in situ was controlled with adjuvant radiation in nearly all cases. Functional outcomes are also promising, as development of primary and compensated hypogonadism was rare. Semen parameters are poor preoperatively among men with benign and malignant testis tumors, with occasional decline after TSS. Frozen section analysis at the time of surgery appears to be very reliable, and the majority of nonpalpable tumors appear to be benign. CONCLUSIONS: TSS is a safe and efficacious technique with regards to oncological control and postoperative hormonal function based on retrospective, noncontrolled studies. TSS avoids unnecessary removal of benign testicular tissue, and should be given serious consideration in cases of nonpalpable, small tumors under 2 cm. In cases of malignancy, TSS can safely avoid anorchia in men with bilateral tumors and in men with solitary testicles. The use of the operating microscope, while theoretically promising, does not necessarily lead to better outcomes, however data are limited.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJUI CompassSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207