Overall survival after perioperative chemotherapy in the management of pulmonary metastasis in osteosarcoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e23508 Background: Pulmonary metastasectomy is performed on a select cohort of patients with advanced osteosarcoma with the potential for long term survival. However, evidence on peri-operative chemotherapy at time of metastasectomy is not completely understood and difficult to summarize without a systematic examination of existing literature. The purpose of this project is to perform a meta-analysis of existing studies to determine overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors in adults and children with advanced and recurrent osteosarcoma receiving chemotherapy around time of metastasectomy. Methods: We reviewed survival studies conducted in children and adults with advanced and recurrent osteosarcoma who undergo pulmonary metastasectomy published in English with more than 5 patients. The primary outcome was overall survival. Literature searches were performed in multiple electronic databases including Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to present), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to present), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Two investigators independently screened all citations, abstracts, and full-text articles. Results: 24 out of 80 observational studies between 1977 to 2018 were included. 2146 patients were studied of which 987 underwent pulmonary metastasectomy for osteosarcoma. 822 patients received perioperative chemotherapy in this setting. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Studies included patients from Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America. The median OS ranged between 20 to 90 months. 5-year OS ranged between 15 to 63%. Factors associated with survival included: age, number of lesions, disease free interval, time of development of metastases, number of lesions and laterality of pulmonary disease. Conclusions: Overall survival in study has a significant range. Factors influencing survival included intrinsic factors such as patient age and disease characteristics, as well as extrinsic factors such as evolution of chemotherapy regimen over the past four decades. The main limitations are related to the inherently low-quality evidence as a result of lack of randomized controlled trials. More comprehensive data is needed to guide shared decision making in this area.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".