MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224928602 · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2022.03.010

Safety of Minimizing Intensity of Follow-up on Active Surveillance for Clinical Stage I Testicular Germ Cell Tumors

2022· article· en· W4224928602 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Gariscsak, Lynn Anson‐Cartwright, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Di Jiang, Peter Chung, Philippe L. Bédard, Padraig Warde, Martin O’Malley, Joan Sweet, Rachel Glicksman, Robert J. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Open Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeminomaMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Exact testGerm cell tumorsRadiologyIntensity (physics)Testicular cancerInternal medicineOncologyCancerNuclear medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have recommended active surveillance as the preferred management option for clinical stage I (CSI) testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) since 1980. Over time, the recommended intensity of surveillance has decreased; however, the impact on relapse detection has not been investigated. To examine relapse rate, time to relapse, extent of disease, and burden of treatment at relapse across decreasing surveillance intensity over time. CSI GCT patients under active surveillance from 1981 to 2021 were included in this study. Through four major iterations in both nonseminomatous (NSGCT) and seminoma surveillance schedules, visit frequency, blood testing, and imaging have been decreased successively. Low-dose, noncontrast computed tomography (CT) scans were adopted in 2011. Categorical variables and time to relapse were compared using chi-square and Fisher’s exact or Kruskal-Wallis test, respectively. A total of 1583 consecutive patients (942 with seminoma and 641 with NSGCT) were included. In seminoma, chest x-rays were reduced from 13 to one and CT scans were reduced from 20 to ten. Relapse rate, time to relapse, N or M category, and International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) classification did not change. In NSGCT, chest x-rays were reduced from 27 to zero and CT scans were reduced from 11 to five. Relapse rate (from 46.2% to 21.2%, p = 0.002) and the median time to relapse (from 6.54 to 4.47 mo, p = 0.025) decreased. No difference in relapsed disease burden was identified by N, M, and S category or IGCCCG classification. Treatment burden at relapse and GCT cancer deaths remained similar for seminoma and NSGCT. Limitations include the retrospective design and large time period covered. Despite considerable reductions in surveillance intensity, we did not observe an increase in disease extent, treatment burden, or GCT cancer deaths upon relapse. These results support that our current lower-intensity active surveillance schedules are safe for managing CSI GCT. Our current reduced-intensity surveillance schedules for clinical stage I germ cell tumors appear to be safe.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology Open ScienceSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207