Identifying Patterns of Failure and Risk Factors for Recurrence in Patients of Paratesticular Sarcomas: Protocol of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Para testicular sarcomas are rare mesenchymal tumors that affect patients of all ages. Unlike other sites of sarcoma, they tend to be of lower grade and have a higher propensity for lymphatic spread. Management is hampered by the small number of patients who differ in terms of tumor grade and histology. Current treatment approaches are based on case reports, small case series and literature reviews, resulting in a number of unresolved issues. The consensus on the type of surgery and adjuvant treatment is yet to be determined. The local relapse rates in the scrotum and groin after orchidectomy comes out to be 25%-37%, indicating the need for either aggressive surgery or adjuvant treatment. There is a paucity of data identifying the patterns of failure and risk factors for recurrence, which will help clinicians tailor appropriate treatment. METHODS: We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data in the last 50 years in a methodologically rigorous and transparent manner to identify patterns of failure and high-risk factors for recurrence. The protocol is prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines. The protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021237134). HIGHLIGHTS: Para testicular sarcomas are rare mesenchymal tumors that affects patients of all ages. Current treatment approaches are based on case reports, small case series and literature reviews, resulting in a number of unresolved issues. A systemic review was performed in 2013 based on survival rates, prognostic factors, and relapse sites on paratesticular sarcomas. However, it lacks a comprehensive review that can guide radiation oncologists to select in which patient's postoperative radiotherapy is warranted and define the target volume based on histopathological type, stage, and grade of the tumor. After 2013, new case series with improved methodology and sample size are published, which adds new information to the literature. In one case series, 22 patients with spermatic cord sarcoma were discussed, while in another study, long-term outcome analysis of 51 patients was discussed, and another study discussed eight patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".