MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2576668127 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1554214

Osteosarcoma of the Spine: Prognostic Variables for Local Recurrence and Overall Survival, A Multicenter Ambispective Study

2015· article· en· W2576668127 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle J. Clarke, Mark B. Dekutoski, Alessandro Luzzati, Laurence D. Rhines, Péter Varga, Peter S. Rose, Charles G. Fisher, Dean Chou, Michael G. Fehlings, Jeremy Reynolds, Richard Williams, Nasir A. Quraishi, Niccole Germscheid, Daniel M. Sciubba, Ziya L. Gokaslan, Stefano Boriani

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteosarcomaPerioperativeSurgerySurgical marginCohortResection marginInternal medicineResectionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Primary spinal osteosarcomas are rare and aggressive neoplasms with poor outcomes. Enneking appropriate, en bloc resection is recommended for appendicular osteosarcomas. Obtaining even marginal margins is technically demanding in the spine, resulting in significant morbidity and possible functional sacrifice. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic variables on local recurrence and mortality, in surgically treated patients diagnosed with a primary osteosarcoma of the spine. Methods A multicenter ambispective database of surgically treated patients with primary spine osteosarcomas was developed by the AOSpine knowledge forum tumor. Patient demographic, diagnosis, treatment, perioperative morbidity, local recurrence, and cross-sectional survival data were collected. Tumors were classified according to Enneking principles and analyzed in the following two cohorts: Enneking appropriate (EA) and Enneking inappropriate (EI). EA was defined by the final pathology margin matching the Enneking recommended surgical margin and EI by not matching. Prognostic variables including age, previous spine tumor operation, biopsy type, spine level, tumor size, and chemotherapy timing were analyzed in reference to local recurrence and survival. Results Between 1987 and 2012, 57 patients (31 females and 26 males) underwent surgical treatment for a primary spinal osteosarcoma at a mean age of 36 ± 16 years. Patients were followed for a mean period of 3.4 ± 3.5 years (range, 0.5 days–14.3 years). Median survival for the entire cohort was 6.7 years postoperative. Overall, 24 (42%) patients died and 17 (30%) patients suffered a local recurrence, 10 (59%) of which died. Overall, 28 (52%) patients underwent EA resection while 26 (48%) patients were treated by EI resection. Median survival for patients with EA was 6.8 years postoperative, whereas median survival for EI patients was 3.7 years postoperatively ( p = 0.062). EI patients were at a higher risk of local recurrence than EA patients ( p = 0.002). Patient age, previous spine tumor operation, tumor size, spine level, and chemotherapy timing did not significantly influence recurrence and survival. Conclusion Osteosarcoma of the spine presents a significant challenge and most patients die from their disease in spite of aggressive surgery. There is a significant decrease in recurrence with en bloc resection when compared with intralesional resection.

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)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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