Extrameningeal solitary fibrous tumors—surgery alone or surgery plus perioperative radiotherapy: A retrospective study from the global solitary fibrous tumor initiative in collaboration with the Sarcoma Patients EuroNet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Solitary fibrous tumor (SFT) is a rare mesenchymal malignancy. Although surgery is potentially curative, the local relapse risk is high after marginal resections. Given the lack of prospective clinical trial data, the objective of the current study was to better define the role of perioperative radiotherapy (RT) in various SFT presentations by location. METHODS: This was retrospective study performed across 7 sarcoma centers. Clinical information was retrieved from all adult patients with extrameningeal, primary, localized SFT who were treated between 1990 and 2018 with surgery alone (S) compared with those who also received perioperative RT (S+RT). Differences in treatment characteristics between subgroups were tested using analysis of variance statistics and propensity score matching. Local control and overall survival rates were calculated from the start of treatment until progression or death from any cause. RESULTS: Of all 549 patients, 428 (78%) underwent S, and 121 (22%) underwent S+RT. The median follow-up was 52 months. After correction for mitotic count and surgical margins, S+RT was significantly associated with a lower risk of local progression (hazard ratio, 0.19: P = .029), an observation further confirmed by propensity score matching (P = .012); however, this association did not translate into an overall survival benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this retrospective study investigating perioperative RT in patients with primary extrameningeal SFT suggest that combining RT with surgery in the management of this patient population is significantly associated with a reduced risk of local failures, especially in patients who have less favorable resection margins and in those who have tumors with a high mitotic count.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".