Management of stage I testicular cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Testicular cancer is the most common solid malignancy amongst young men, and a large proportion present with stage I disease. The options for management following radical orchiectomy are multifold. We review here approaches to treatment in this setting, providing an update on recent publications. RECENT FINDINGS: At Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, we maintain a nonrisk adapted active surveillance approach. With a dedicated surveillance program using low-dose computed tomography imaging, patients are appropriately identified early for treatment on relapse. There are ongoing investigations into minimizing toxicities of treatments for relapse, and in particular, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) presents an attractive alternative. This, though, remains investigational in the setting of seminoma. SUMMARY: Testicular cancer is a highly curable malignancy. In stage I disease, an active surveillance approach following radical orchiectomy is preferred, irrespective of risk-profile. This approach serves to limit the toxicity of adjuvant treatment in a significant proportion of patients, while maintaining excellent survival outcomes.
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".