High‐risk extracranial chondrosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to evaluate results of surgery and radiotherapy (RT) for high-risk extracranial chondrosarcomas. METHODS: Between 1986 and 2006, 60 patients underwent surgery and RT for extracranial high-risk chondrosarcoma. Preoperative RT (median, 50 gray [Gy]) and postoperative RT (median, 60 Gy) were used in 40% and 60% patients, respectively. Sites included pelvis/lower extremity (48%), chest wall (22%), spine/paraspinal (17%), and head and neck (13%). Overall, median tumor size was 7 cm (range, 1-22 cm), and tumor grade was I, II, and III in 22%, 64%, and 14% of cases, respectively. RESULTS: Pathologically clear surgical margins (R0) were present in 50%, microscopic positive margins (R1) in 28%, and gross positive margins (R2) in 13%, half of whom had clinically detectable residual disease; surgical margin was unknown in 8%. Median follow-up was 75 months (range, 5-230 months). The crude local control rate was 90%. Patients with R0, R1, and R2 resections had local control of 100%, 94%, and 42%, respectively. Of the 8 cases that had R2 resection, 3 experienced uncontrolled progression, but 5 patients had stable disease with long-term follow-up. The 10-year overall survival, progression-free survival, and cause-specific survival were 86%, 80.5%, and 89.4%, respectively. Younger age and grade III tumors were associated with worse progression-free survival (P = .03 and .0003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although surgery with complete resection is paramount in management of chondrosarcoma, RT is a useful adjuvant treatment and appears to offer excellent and durable local control where wide surgical resection is difficult to accomplish.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".