Surgery in Early Metastatic Seminoma: A Phase II Trial of Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Seminoma With Limited Retroperitoneal Lymphadenopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The long-term toxicities of chemotherapy and radiotherapy can represent a significant burden to testicular cancer survivors. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is an established treatment for testicular germ cell tumors with minimal late morbidity although little data exist on its efficacy in early metastatic seminoma. Surgery in early metastatic seminoma is a prospective phase II single-arm, multi-institutional trial of RPLND as first-line treatment for testicular seminoma with clinically low-volume retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve sites in the United States and Canada prospectively enrolled adult patients with testicular seminoma and isolated retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (1-3 cm). Open RPLND was performed by certified surgeons with a primary end point of 2-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). Complication rates, pathologic up/downstaging, recurrence patterns, adjuvant therapies, and treatment-free survival were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were enrolled, with a median (IQR) largest clinical lymph node size of 1.6 cm (1.3-1.9). RPLND pathology demonstrated a median (IQR) largest lymph node size of 2.3 cm (0.9-3.5); nine patients (16%) were pN0, 12 (22%) pN1, 31 (56%) pN2, and 3 (5%) pN3. One patient received adjuvant chemotherapy. With a median (IQR) follow-up of 33 months (12.0-61.6), 12 patients experienced recurrence, with a 2-year RFS of 81% and a recurrence rate of 22%. Of the patients who experienced recurrence, 10 were treated with chemotherapy and two underwent additional surgery. At last follow-up, all patients who experienced a recurrence were disease-free and the 2-year overall survival was 100%. Four patients (7%) experienced short-term complications, and four patients experienced long-term complications including incisional hernia (1) and anejaculation (3). CONCLUSION: RPLND is a treatment option for testicular seminoma with clinically low-volume retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy and is associated with low long-term morbidity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".