Testicular germ cells tumors in adolescents and young adults: Management and outcomes from a single-center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the effectiveness of active surveillance versus post-surgical active treatment, in patients with testicular germ cells tumor (TGCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 52 patients who underwent surgery for TGCT from January 2009 to December 2014. All the patients were divided into two age groups: the Group A included children-adolescents from 18 months to 21 years old, while the Group B comprised young adults from 22 to 39 years old. Clinical, histopathological, therapeutic and follow-up data were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 22 patients (42,3%) were enrolled in the Group A and 30 patients (57.7%) were categorized in the Group B. Inguinal orchiectomy was performed in all patients. Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy was performed in 4 patients (7.7%). Post-surgical management differed based on clinical stage, resulting in active surveillance or adjuvant therapy. After an average 7 years follow-up period (range: 3.5-9.0 years), the overall survival rate is 100%. The relapse risk is significantly higher for the patients in the Group B, displaying a recurrence free-survival rate of 72% versus 95% (Group A); 11 relapses (21.1%) were recorded 2 years after surgery. Of these, 3 recurrences (12.0%) occurred in patients undergoing an active surveillance approach, while 8 (29.6%) in patients subjected to an active treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The excellent prognosis in both age groups confirms the high curability of this neoplasia. The active surveillance could represent an optimal option for low recurrence risk tumors. However, post-surgical treatments should be taken into consideration for TGCT with high risk factors, including tumor size, lymphovascular and rete testis invasion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".