MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes of patients with stage I testicular cancer following orchidectomy with borderline retroperitoneal lymph node enlargement at diagnosis.

2025· article· en· W4407701961 on OpenAlexaff
Deepro Chowdhury, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Di Jiang, Esmail Mutahar Al-Ezzi, Rachel Glicksman, Peter Chung, Susan Prendeville, Martin O’Malley, Padraig Warde, Robert J. Hamilton, Philippe L. Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetroperitoneal lymph node dissectionTesticular cancerStage (stratigraphy)Lymph nodeRetroperitoneal spaceOrchiectomyRadiologyUrologyCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

633 Background: Approximately 60% of men diagnosed with testicular cancer present with Stage I disease. Most metastases occur in the retroperitoneal lymph nodes (RPLN); RPLN measuring 8-10 mm in the long axis in the appropriate landing zone are considered highly suspicious, and those measuring > 10 mm usually receive additional surgery, chemotherapy or radiation. Many of these patients’ (pt) RPLN will spontaneously regress without additional treatment. Our goal is to better understand the incidence, natural history, and predictors of such spontaneous RP nodal regressions. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of clinical records and staging CT imaging reports from all pts followed at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) from 2004 – 2024 with Stage I-IIA testicular cancer following orchidectomy. Our primary outcome of interest was the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS, calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method) of pts with testicular cancer with borderline RPLN (longest dimension 8-14 mm based on first CT scan done within 60 days of orchidectomy) in the appropriate landing zone with no other sites of metastases, and declining or normal tumor markers (AFP, HCG and/or LDH) post-orchiectomy who were initially managed with active surveillance according to a pre-determined schedule with additional interim assessments as deemed appropriate by the treating team. Secondary outcomes included identifying histopathologic predictors of relapse in pts who ultimately went on to require further treatment using a Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: Of the 1535 pts with Stage I-IIA disease, 126 had borderline enlarged RPLN (8.2%). 63.7% were pure seminoma (SEM) and 36.3% were non-seminoma germ cell tumors (NSGCT). Incidence of right, left, and bilateral primaries was 47.6%, 50.8% and 1.6% respectively. Median age at consultation was 33 (SEM; range 19-59) vs 27 (NSGCT; range 19-49) years. Median follow-up was 61.9 (5.8 – 203) months. 5-year RFS was 56% (95% CI 46%-64%) in the entire cohort, 61% (95% CI 49%-71%) in SEM and 48.9% (95% CI 33.7%-62.4%) for NSGCT (p = 0.024 SEM vs NSGCT). Median time to relapse (TTR) was 15.8 (95% CI 6.5-25.0) weeks. 5-year OS was 100% regardless of relapse status. Pure embryonal carcinoma (EC) histology (p = 0.014) and LVI (p = 0.03) were associated with subsequent relapse. Rete testes invasion, primary tumor size, largest LN diameter and number of suspicious nodes were not associated with relapse (p > 0.05 for all). Conclusions: It is reasonable to consider careful close interval follow-up and active surveillance in pts with borderline RPLN and falling or negative tumor markers. Short interval follow-up CT scan (6-8 weeks) after orchidectomy to re-evaluate borderline RPLN may spare overtreatment of men who have been cured with orchiectomy alone. EC histology and LVI were independent predictors of relapse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicTesticular diseases and treatments→French-language works237,207→