MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2574781796 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1554215

Ewing Sarcoma of the Spine: Prognostic Variables for Survival and Local Control in Surgically Treated Patients

2015· article· en· W2574781796 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence D. Rhines, Michael Dirks, Stefano Boriani, Alessandro Luzzati, Michael G. Fehlings, Charles Fisher, Mark B. Dekutoski, Richard Williams, Nasir A. Quraishi, Ziya L. Gokaslan, Chetan Bettegowda, Niccole Germscheid, Péter Varga

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcomaSurgeryEwing's sarcomaOverall survivalSurvival analysisSurvival rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Primary Ewing sarcoma of the spine is a challenging tumor to treat because of a high rate of local recurrence. The optimum role of surgery in the treatment of Ewing sarcoma is not clearly defined. The objective of this study was to analyze factors relevant to survival and local control in surgically treated patients diagnosed with primary Ewing sarcoma of the spine. Materials and Methods A multi-institutional international ambispective with cross-sectional follow-up data was gathered about patients who underwent surgery for primary Ewing sarcoma of the spine. The primary outcomes assessed were 5-year survival and local recurrence. Multiple variables including the Enneking appropriateness of the surgery were evaluated for relationships to the primary outcomes. An Enneking appropriate procedure for Ewing sarcoma is an en bloc resection with negative margins. Survival and recurrence were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank tests. Results A total of 59 patients diagnosed with primary Ewing sarcoma of the spine underwent surgery. Enneking appropriateness of surgery was known for 55 patients; 30 treated Enneking appropriately (EA) and 25 treated Enneking inappropriately (EI). The 5-year survival was 73% ( n = 22) for EA patients and 48% ( n = 12) for EI patients. Median survival was not achieved within 5-year postoperative for EA patients and was 2.2 years for EI patients ( p = 0.124). Local recurrence occurred in 20% ( n = 6) of patients with an EA procedure versus 48% ( n = 11) of patients with an EI procedure. The rate of local control was favorable for EA-treated patients compared with EI-treated patients ( p = 0.046). Conclusion Primary spinal Ewing sarcoma requires multidisciplinary treatment. An Enneking appropriate surgical procedure is associated with longer survival and better local control. An Enneking appropriate procedure, when feasible, should be the surgical treatment of choice for primary spinal Ewing sarcoma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207