Fractures Following Radiotherapy and Limb-Salvage Surgery for Lower Extremity Soft-Tissue Sarcomas
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present retrospective study was to determine the correlation between radiation therapy and the risk of postradiation fracture following combined therapy for the treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas of the lower extremity. METHODS: Three hundred and sixty-four patients with lower extremity sarcomas that had been treated with combined external beam radiation therapy and limb-salvage surgery were evaluated on the basis of a combined chart and data-base review. For the purposes of analysis, high-dose radiation was defined as 60 or 66 Gy and low-dose radiation was defined as 50 Gy. The timing of irradiation was defined as preoperative, postoperative, or preoperative followed by a postoperative boost. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine which factors were associated with fracture risk. RESULTS: Twenty-seven fractures occurred in twenty-three patients. Twenty-four fractures occurred in twenty patients who had been managed with high-dose radiation. Seventeen of these patients had received postoperative radiation (with fifteen patients receiving 66 Gy and two receiving 60 Gy), and three had received preoperative radiation with a postoperative boost (total dose, 66 Gy). Three fractures occurred in three patients who had received preoperative, low-dose radiation (50 Gy). Of the twenty-three patients who sustained a pathologic fracture, eighteen were female and five were male. The crude median time to fracture was forty-three months. Most fractures occurred in the femoral shaft (thirteen) or the femoral neck (eight). High-dose radiation was associated with a greater risk of fracture when compared with low-dose radiation (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Women more than fifty-five years of age who are managed with removal of a thigh sarcoma combined with radiation therapy have a higher risk of pathologic fracture. The frequency of pathologic fractures associated with higher doses (60 or 66 Gy) of radiation is significantly higher than that associated with lower doses (50 Gy).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».