MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff
Cara A. Cipriano, Anthony M. Griffin, Peter C. Ferguson, Jay S. Wunder

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicineSarcomaRetrospective cohort studyProportional hazards modelSurgeryMetastasisIncidence (geometry)Primary tumorMetastasectomyRadiologyCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.151
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.151
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.296
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207