Thoracoscopy vs thoracotomy for the management of metastatic osteosarcoma: A Pediatric Surgical Oncology Research Collaborative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complete surgical resection of pulmonary metastatic disease in patients with osteosarcoma is crucial to long-term survival. Open thoracotomy allows palpation of nodules not identified on imaging but the impact on survival is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) and pulmonary disease-free survival (DFS) in children who underwent thoracotomy vs thoracoscopic surgery for pulmonary metastasectomy. A multi-institutional collaborative group retrospectively reviewed 202 pediatric patients with osteosarcoma who underwent pulmonary metastasectomy by thoracotomy (n = 154) or thoracoscopy (n = 48). Results were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. With median follow-up of 45 months, 135 (67.5%) patients had a pulmonary relapse and 95 (47%) patients were deceased. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in 5-year pulmonary DFS (25% vs 38%; P = .18) or OS (49% vs 42%, P = .37) between the surgical approaches of thoracotomy and thoracoscopy. In Cox regression analysis controlling for other factors impacting outcome, there was a significantly increased risk of mortality (HR 2.11; P = .027; 95% CI 1.09-4.09) but not pulmonary recurrence (HR 0.96; P = .90; 95% CI 0.52-1.79) with a thoracoscopic approach. However, in the subset analysis limited to patients with oligometastatic disease, thoracoscopy had no increased risk of mortality (HR 1.16; P = .62; 0.64-2.11). In conclusion, patients with metastatic osteosarcoma and limited pulmonary disease burden demonstrate comparable outcomes after thoracotomy and thoracoscopy for metastasectomy. While significant selection bias in these surgical cohorts limits the generalizability of the conclusions, clinical equipoise for a randomized clinical trial in patients with oligometastatic disease is supported.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".