THE USE OF TISSUE EXPANDERS AND LOCAL RADIOTHERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF MALIGNANT TUMOURS OF THE PELVIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We report a series of patients with malignant tumours of the pelvis that had a tissue expander inserted in the pelvis to facilitate radical radiotherapy, and report functional outcomes following treatment. Introduction: Surgery for malignant tumours affecting the pelvis is challenging. Some tumours are suitable for internal hemipelvectomy and reconstruction, some require hindquarter amputation and some are inoperable. Overall prognosis is poor with high morbidity and mortality rates. There may be a place for alternative treatment with the insertion of pelvic spacers to facilitate radical radiotherapy. This is indicated in patients who have an inoperable tumour, who decline amputation, or who had an internal hemipelvectomy with close margins and high risk of local recurrence. Methods & Results: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who presented with a malignant tumour of the pelvis and who underwent an insertion of a pelvic spacer followed by local high dose radiotherapy. Available patients were followed up and evaluated using the Musculoskeletal Society Tumour Score (MSTS) and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). There were ten patients; 5 had Ewing’s sarcoma, 3 had osteosarcoma, 1 had spindle cell sarcoma and 1 had alveolar soft part sarcoma. 4 patients had metastases on presentation. The average age was 30 years (14 to 56 years), and average follow-up was 15 months (12 to 24 months). 4 patients died and 6 are still alive. There were no surgical complications. The average length of hospital stay was 6 days (2 to 10 days). Patients averaged an MSTS score of 63% and a TESS of 67%. Conclusion: Radical radiotherapy after spacer insertion offers an alternative to morbid surgery and is associated with 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".