Outcomes after primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in men with stage 2 non-seminomatous germ cell tumour: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
516 Background: Based on only smaller retrospective cohort studies, current guidelines recommend primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for men with marker-negative stage 2a non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT). We aimed to reassess the role of primary RPLND in marker negative stage 2a, explore results in stages 2b/c and/or marker-positive disease, and evaluate surgical methods, recurrence, and adjuvant chemotherapy indications. Methods: Data from 17 institutions were collected, comprising 305 men who underwent primary RPLND for stage 2 NSGCT. Regression analyses were conducted to predict histology in the RPLND specimen and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: A larger retroperitoneal lymph node diameter was associated with pure teratoma in the RPLND specimen (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.09, p-value = 0.02), but it did not correlate with PFS. The 5-year PFS rates were 85% for men with pure teratoma, 94% for men with viable cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 72% for men with viable cancer who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The number of adjuvant chemotherapy cycles did not significantly affect PFS. Conclusions: Our study suggests considering primary RPLND not only in marker negative clinical stage 2a but also marker negative clinical stage 2b. Further research should identify the efficacy in men in other stages (2C or marker positive) and which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and the optimal cycle number.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".