Oncologic and functional outcomes of radical and partial nephrecotmy in PT3A patholigically upstaged renal cell carcinoma: A multi-instituitional analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
685 Background: Radical Nephrectomy (RN) has been the standard of care for complex and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Efficacy of PN in the setting of pT3a pathologic upstaged disease is controversial. We compared oncologic and functional outcomes of RN and PN in patients with upstaged pT3a RCC. Methods: Multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with cT1−2N0M0 RCC undergoing RN or PN upstaged to pT3a postoperatively. Primary outcome was Overall Survival (OS), with secondary outcomes being Recurrence Free Survival (RFS) and eGFR < 60 at last follow-up. Results: 8185 patients were analyzed (mean follow up 48 months). 945 (11.5%) were upstaged to pT3a [686 (72.6%) RN, 243 (25.7%) PN]. Logistic regression analysis showed that increasing age, decreasing BMI, increasing intraoperative EBL, and positive margin increased the OR of all-cause mortality (all p < 0.05, Table). Kaplan Meier analysis (KMA) revealed 5−year OS for PN cT1→pT3a, RN cT1→pT3a, PN cT2→pT3a, RN cT2→pT3a of 64%, 65.2%, 56.4% and 55.2% respectively (p = 0.059). KMA revealed 5−year RFS for PN cT1→pT3a, RN cT1→pT3a, PN cT2→pT3a, RN cT2→pT3a of 79%, 74%, 70% and 51% respectively (p < 0.001). PN was associated with a decreased risk of GFR < 60 at follow up (39.6% vs. 59.5% for RN, p = 0.008) Conclusions: PN did not adversely affect oncologic outcomes in select patients who are upstaged to pT3a RCC from cT1 or cT2 disease, and may provide renal functional benefit. Improvements with respect to RFS for PN are most likely driven by selection bias. [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".