Primary mesenteric sarcomas: Collaborative experience from the Trans‐Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary mesenteric soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare and limited evidence is available to inform management. Surgical resection is challenging due to the proximity of vital structures and a need to preserve enteric function. OBJECTIVES: To determine the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients undergoing primary resection for mesenteric STS. METHODS: The Trans-Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG) is an intercontinental collaborative comprising specialist sarcoma centers. Data were collected retrospectively for all patients with mesenteric STS undergoing primary resection between 2000 and 2019. RESULTS: Fifty-six cases from 15 institutions were included. The spectrum of pathology was similar to the retroperitoneum, although of a higher grade. R0/R1 resection was achieved in 87%. Median OS was 56 months. OS was significantly shorter in higher-grade tumors (p = .018) and extensive resection (p < .001). No significant association between OS and resection margin or tumor size was detected. Rates of local recurrence (LR) and distant metastases (DM) at 5 years were 60% and 41%, respectively. Liver metastases were common (60%), reflecting portal drainage of the mesentery. CONCLUSION: Primary mesenteric sarcoma is rare, with a modest survival rate. LR and DM are frequent events. Liver metastases are common, highlighting the need for surveillance imaging.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".