Primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for metastatic non‐seminomatous germ cell tumours: outcomes and adjuvant chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes and treatment burden of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (pRPLND) alone versus pRPLND + adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in patients with pathological stage II (PSII) non-seminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of the Princess Margaret Cancer Center eTestes cancer database identified patients with PSII NSGCT after pRPLND between 1995 and 2020. The primary outcome was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included disease-specific survival (DSS), burden of relapse treatment, and factors associated with relapse. RESULTS: A total of 109 PSII patients were included in the study. There were 96 patients treated with pRPLND alone and 13 treated with pRPLND + AC. The median follow-up was 61 months. The 5-year RFS was 72% for the pRPLND-only group vs 92% for the pRPLND + AC group (hazard ratio [HR] 4.372, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-32.36; P = 0.11). Within the pRPLND-only group the 5-year RFS differed by pN stage (pN1 = 94% vs pN2/N3 = 67%, P = 0.03). Despite a higher relapse rate within the pRPLND-only group, the DSS was similar at 5 years (98% pRPLND only vs 100% pRPLND + AC, P = 0.48). Only 24 (25%) of the patients in the pRPLND-only group required any subsequent chemotherapy. Despite achieving similar survival, the cumulative post-RPLND treatment burden was less for the pRPLND-only group than the pRPLND+AC group overall (average 1.23 vs 2.46 cycles of chemotherapy per patient in group). CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with PSII NSGCT treated with pRPLND alone do not experience a recurrence or require chemotherapy. Despite a lower relapse risk when AC is given, no difference in survival was seen but higher chemotherapy burden was entertained. AC may constitute overtreatment for most patients with PSII NSGCT treated with pRPLND.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".