Prognosis of Radiation-induced Bone Sarcoma is Similar to Primary Osteosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Radiation-induced sarcoma of bone (RISB) is thought to be associated with a poor prognosis. The purpose of this study was to determine disease-free and overall survival of patients treated for RISB, and whether there is a role for limb sparing surgery. Twenty-four patients had a mean latency of 16 years between radiation for their index cancer and RISB diagnosis. The most common tumor was osteosarcoma (n = 17). Ten patients with localized disease treated aggressively with chemotherapy and surgical resection had estimated 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates of 58% and 69% respectively. Patients treated by surgery alone or those with metastases at diagnosis had inferior outcomes. Patients who received a complete course of chemotherapy demonstrated better histologic tumor response and improved survival. There was no difference in survival between the limb sparing surgery (n = 12) or amputation (n = 8) groups. However, limb salvage patients had slightly higher rates of local tumor relapse and post-operative complications. Functional outcome following limb sparing surgery for 10 patients with RISB was similar to a matched cohort treated for primary osteosarcoma. An aggressive treatment approach for patients with RISB may provide similar rates of local recurrence and metastasis and functional outcomes compared to patients with primary osteosarcoma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV-1.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".