SEMS trial: Result of a prospective, multi-institutional phase II clinical trial of surgery in early metastatic seminoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
375 Background: Chemotherapy or radiotherapy are standard treatments for stage II seminoma, though they are associated with significant long-term treatment-related toxicities. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is an established treatment for testicular germ cell tumors but little data exists on its efficacy as a front-line treatment in early metastatic (stage II) seminoma. This is a single-arm, multi-institutional (NCT02537548), phase II study of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RLND) as first-line treatment for testicular seminoma with isolated retroperitoneal disease. Methods: Twelve sites in the United States and Canada prospectively enrolled patients (16 years of age) with testicular seminoma and isolated retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy between 1-3 cm in size. Patients were excluded if they received prior therapy (except orchiectomy) for testicular cancer. Open, modified-template RPLND was performed by qualified surgeons with a primary endpoint of 2-year recurrence-free survival. Data on complication rates (short and long-term), pathologic up/downstaging, recurrence patterns, adjuvant therapies, and treatment-free survival were assessed. Results: A total of 55 patients were enrolled and underwent RPLND. Fourteen patients had initial stage I disease who developed isolated retroperitoneal relapse while 41 patients had clinical stage IIA-B at presentation. With a median follow-up of 24 months (8-52 months), there were a total of 10 recurrences. The overall recurrence rate was 18% with a median time to recurrence of 8 months. Of the recurrences, 8 underwent chemotherapy (6 BEP X 3, 1 EP X 4, 1 carbo/etoposide) and 2 underwent additional surgery. The two-year recurrence free survival was 87% and the overall survival was 100%. There were 7 (13%) patients who experienced short-term complications within 1 year of RPLND. Of these, 5 (9%) were classified as Clavien Dindo I-II and 2 (3.6%) were classified as Clavien Dindo III. No patients have reported long-term complications. Conclusions: This trial establishes RPLND as a therapeutic option as a first-line treatment in early metastatic seminoma. The surgery offers cancer control rates similar to those seen in non-seminomatous germ cell tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT02537548.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".