Oncological outcome and complications of post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal surgery in non-seminomatous germ cell tumours – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-chemotherapy surgery constitutes an integral part of the management of patients with non-seminomatous germ-cell tumours with a residual mass in the retroperitoneum. Published data on recurrence rates and complications to bilateral retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND), unilateral template RPLND, and resection of residual mass only according to different surgical techniques (open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery) were reviewed. PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane databases were searched systematically. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. In total, 28 studies were included. Eight studies reported on open surgery with the bilateral template, seven on the unilateral template, and three on resection of mass only. Median follow-up was 39, 39, and 70 months, respectively. Recurrences were found in 11, 12, and 14%, respectively. Major complications (Clavien–Dindo III or more) were observed in 18, 8, and 17%, respectively. Two studies reported on laparoscopic bilateral surgery, eight on unilateral, and two on residual mass only. A total of Median follow-up was 52, 29, and 55 months, respectively. Recurrences were found in 0, 1, and 9%, respectively. Major complications were not documented for bilateral but were observed in 4% for unilateral and 0% for resection of tumour only. Four studies on robotic bilateral surgery, three on unilateral and two on resection of tumour only were included. Follow-up was 18, 35, and 30 months, respectively. Recurrences were found in 0, 0, and 2%, respectively. Major complications were observed in 0, 10. and 2%, respectively. When patient selection is made, recurrence rates for the open unilateral template are comparable to the bilateral template. The risk of complications is highest after an open bilateral template. Laparoscopic and robotic surgery should not be used as a standard procedure. More studies are required with larger patient populations and longer follow-up.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".