Patient‐reported functional outcomes in a cohort of hand and foot sarcoma survivors treated with limb sparing surgery and radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Describe patient-reported functional outcomes for hand and foot sarcoma survivors treated with limb-sparing surgery and radiation therapy (LSS + RT). METHODS: Fifty-four patients with hand/wrist and foot/ankle sarcomas treated with LSS + RT from 1991 to 2015 were identified. Survivors ≥18 years old without subsequent amputation completed self-assessed functional surveys: Toronto upper extremity salvage score (TESS-UE) and Michigan hand outcomes (MHQ) surveys for hand; TESS lower extremity (TESS-LE) and Foot and Ankle Outcomes (FAOS) surveys for foot. Scoring scales: 0-100, MHQ and TESS; -26 to 56 and 25-59, FAOS core and shoe comfort, respectively. Higher scores denote superior function. RESULTS: Five-year local tumor control was 88%. Fourteen of 24 hand (58%) and 14/18 foot (78%) survivors completed surveys. Mean TESS-UE and MHQ scores were 89.4 and 72.8, respectively. Mean TESS-LE, core FAOS, and shoe comfort scores were 92.4, 46.19, and 53.1, respectively. No factors correlated with outcomes. TESS-UE and MHQ scores strongly correlated (r = .87). TESS-LE and FAOS scores were associated with a poor correlation (r = .02 and r = .69). CONCLUSIONS: The largest patient-reported functional outcomes analysis for hand and foot sarcoma survivors treated with LSS + RT demonstrates excellent local tumor control and acceptable functional outcomes. Further exploration of optimal functional assessment tools is needed given the potential scope differences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".