Case series. Soft-tissue sarcoma of the foot.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We reviewed cases of soft-tissue sarcoma of the foot to gain insight into the presentation, treatments and outcomes for this rare disease and to determine whether limb-salvage surgery yields reasonable functional and oncological outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of 16 patients treated by 2 of us (R.T. and M.I.) for soft-tissue sarcoma of the foot over a 15-year period. We extracted the following information from each patient's medical record: disease status at presentation, prior treatment, histological diagnosis, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, details of treatment, oncological outcome and functional outcome. Functional outcome was assessed with the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS 1987). RESULTS: Follow-up averaged 6 (range 2–15) years. Eight patients presented after unplanned excision. Histological diagnosis was synovial sarcoma for 7 of 16 patients.The tumours were evenly distributed among the hindfoot, midfoot and forefoot. Most patients (n = 13) presented with AJCC stage II or III disease. Amputation was necessary for 3 patients, whereas limb salvage was possible for the other 13. Free tissue transfer (n = 9) and radiation therapy (n = 12) were used in most cases. Surgical margins were microscopically positive in 4 of the 13 patients treated with limb salvage.Local disease recurred in 2 patients. Lung metastases occurred in 4 patients. At last follow-up, 11 of 16 patients were alive without disease, 2 with disease and 3 had died of their disease. Functional assessment with MSTS 1987 and the TESS averaged 28%and 90%, respectively, after limb salvage. CONCLUSION: In this series, we found that, first, patients frequently presented after unplanned excision, and this may have led to worse oncological outcomes compared with patients who presented primarily. Second, limb salvage was usually possible, but it required accepting marginal resections, relying on free tissue transfer to obtain coverage and using radiation therapy to obtain local control. Third, this combination yielded an acceptable local control rate and very good functional outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".