Lower extremity lymphedema after pelvic nodal dissection for urologic cancers is associated with metastatic recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for lymphedema secondary to pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in urologic surgery. Secondary lymphedema is the most common type of lymphedema in the U.S. and the role of PLND in lower extremity lymphedema etiology is less well-defined. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all PLNDs performed for urologic malignancies at a single academic institution between April 2014 and April 2017. Patient demographics, comorbidities, cancer staging, and other treatment information were collected. Incidence of lower extremity lymphedema and associated risk factors were explored. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients were included in our study. Mean (standard deviation) age was 68.8 (8.9) years, and the mean followup duration was 2.4 (1.7) years. Lymphedema occurred in 22 (9.4%) patients, and the mean time to lymphedema diagnosis was 7.4 (8.0) months. Age, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, pre- or postoperative radiation, number of resected lymph nodes, and number of positive lymph nodes were not significantly associated with postoperative lower extremity lymphedema; however, metastatic recurrence was significantly associated with the development of postoperative lymphedema. (odds ratio 2.83, 95% confidence interval 1.1-7.32, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: While the incidence of lower extremity lymphedema after PLND is low in urologic cancer patients, this complication is associated with metastatic recurrence. These results may allow for improved preoperative counseling on the risk of lower extremity lymphedema and inform cancer surveillance in patients with this complication. More research is needed to elucidate this association.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".