Management of testicular cancer: Practice survey in localized stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Management of testicular cancer requires a complete evaluation to confirm the localized stage and effective treatment according to guidelines to ensure the best outcome. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate practices at each stage of care in patients with a localized testicular tumor. The secondary objective was to evaluate the oncological prognosis of these patients according to the modalities of care. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter practice evaluation study with retrospective collection and evaluation of patient records. The study was conducted in two French departments (population pool of 2 million inhabitants) between January 1, 2010, and January 31, 2015, enabling a five-year followup of patients. Patients presenting with stage I testicular tumor according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification were included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 226 records were analyzed; 93% of patients underwent bilateral scrotal ultrasound and 93.25% had a chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography scan. A total of 29.65% of patients had a preoperative tumor marker assay in accordance with guidelines; 94% of patients had a total orchiectomy, with a median time of 15 days. At the end of the followup period, 17 patients had suffered a recurrence of their disease. Providing adjuvant care in accordance with guidelines reduced the risk of recurrence in patients with a seminomatous tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed heterogeneity in compliance with guidelines for evaluation and effective treatment of patients with a localized testicular tumor. Some essential practices, such as assays of tumor markers and fertility preservation for patients over 40 years, were not well carried out. Adjuvant management of localized tumors appears to be an important predictor of recurrence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".