MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2460540104 · doi:10.1007/s11999-016-4941-x

Developing an Evidence-based Followup Schedule for Bone Sarcomas Based on Local Recurrence and Metastatic Progression

2016· article· en· W2460540104 sur OpenAlexaff
Cara A. Cipriano, Anthony M. Griffin, Peter C. Ferguson, Jay S. Wunder

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Mots-clésMedicineSarcomaRetrospective cohort studyProportional hazards modelSurgeryMetastasisIncidence (geometry)Primary tumorMetastasectomyRadiologyCancerInternal medicinePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The potential for local recurrence and pulmonary metastasis after treatment of primary bone sarcomas necessitates careful patient followup; however, minimal data exist regarding the incidence and timing of these events, and therefore an evidence-based surveillance protocol has not been developed. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to (1) describe the frequency and timing of local recurrence by histologic grade over time; (2) describe the frequency and timing of metastasis by histologic grade and diagnosis over time; and (3) use these data to either justify current surveillance schedules and/or propose modifications that may improve the rate of new pulmonary metastatic events detected per examination. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent resection of a primary, nonmetastatic bone sarcoma (excluding chordoma) at a single tertiary oncology center from 1989 to 2010. Of the 680 patients identified, 15 were excluded for loss of followup in the first 2 years, leaving 665 eligible for study. Of these, 437 patients were alive with no evidence of disease at the conclusion of the study (mean followup, 136 months; range, 25-321 months). Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate and control for patient age, tumor size, tumor location, and surgical margins. With patients stratified by sarcoma grade, Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for the endpoints of local recurrence and metastasis, and log-rank tests were used to compare the rates of these events between grades and diagnoses. The number of new pulmonary metastatic events per patient-year was calculated for each sarcoma grade over the time intervals used in current surveillance protocols (0-2, 2-5, 5-10, and > 10 years) to facilitate development of a surveillance schedule that would maximize events detected per imaging study performed. In addition, to determine the effect of disease type, subset analysis was performed for osteosarcoma (OSA) and chondrosarcoma because these were the only diagnoses with sufficient numbers to support individual statistical analysis. RESULTS: With the numbers available for study, the overall local recurrence-free survival did not differ between sarcoma grades at any time points (p = 0.864). Metastasis-free survival curves differed between sarcoma grades (p < 0.001), and the pattern of Grade 2 OSA metastasis was more consistent with other Grade 3 sarcomas, so it was subsequently classified as high grade. No metastases of Grade 1 sarcomas occurred after 3 years, whereas Grade 2 and 3 sarcomas continued to metastasize until 10 years and rarely thereafter. According to the number of new pulmonary metastatic events per patient-year in each group, we propose that chest surveillance be performed according to the following schedule: annually only until 5 years for low-grade sarcomas; every 3 months for 2 years and annually from 2 to 10 years for intermediate-grade sarcomas; and every 3 months for 2 years, every 6 months from 2 to 5 years, and annually from 5 to 10 years for high-grade sarcomas. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary screening beyond 5 years may not be necessary for Grade 1 tumors but should be continued until 10 years for Grade 2 and 3 bone sarcomas. The surveillance frequency listed here, which is based on the number of new pulmonary metastatic events per patient-year in each grade, would increase the number of such events detected per examination performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,815
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,587

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,296
Tête enseignante GPT0,512
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations32
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchMême sujetSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207