A systematic meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for localized resectable soft‐tissue sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of adjuvant chemotherapy to treat adults with localized resectable soft-tissue sarcoma remains controversial. The objective of this systematic review was to update the 1997 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to reassess the efficacy of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy with respect to recurrence and survival. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify RCTs of adjuvant chemotherapy for adult patients diagnosed with localized resectable soft-tissue sarcoma. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of the studies using a modified version of the Detsky Quality Scale. The outcome measures were local, distant, and overall recurrence and survival calculated through the fixed effect or random effect model. RESULTS: Four new eligible trials were identified allowing for a total of 18 trials representing 1953 patients to be included in the analysis. The odds ratios (OR) for local recurrence was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.94; P = .02) in favor of chemotherapy. For distant and overall recurrence the OR was 0.67 (95% CI 0.56-0.82; P = .0001) in favor of chemotherapy. In terms of survival, doxorubicin alone had an OR of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.03; P = .09), which as not statistically significant. However, the OR for doxorubicin combined with ifosfamide was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.36-0.85; P = .01) in favor of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This updated meta-analysis confirms the marginal efficacy of chemotherapy in localized resectable soft-tissue sarcoma with respect to local recurrence, distant recurrence, overall recurrence, and overall survival. These benefits are further improved with the addition of ifosfamide to doxorubicin-based regimens, but must be weighed against associated toxicities.
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 | 0.035 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".