How Do the Outcomes of Radiation-Associated Pelvic and Sacral Bone Sarcomas Compare to Primary Osteosarcomas following Surgical Resection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiation-associated sarcoma of the pelvis and/or sacrum (RASB) is a rare but challenging disease process associated with a poor prognosis. We hypothesized that patients with RASB would have worse surgical and oncologic outcomes than patients diagnosed with primary pelvic or sacral bone sarcomas. This was a retrospective, multi-institution, comparative analysis. We reviewed surgically treated patients from multiple tertiary care centers who were diagnosed with a localized RASB. We also identified a comparison group including all patients diagnosed with a primary localized pelvic or sacral osteosarcoma/spindle cell sarcoma of bone (POPS). There were 35 patients with localized RASB and 73 patients with POPS treated with surgical resection. Patients with RASB were older than those with POPS (57 years vs. 38 years, p < 0.001). Patients with RASB were less likely to receive chemotherapy (71% for RASB vs. 90% for POPS, p = 0.01). Seventeen percent of patients with RASB died in the perioperative period (within 90 days of surgery) as compared to 4% with POPS (p = 0.03). Five-year disease-specific survival (DSS) (31% vs. 54% p = 0.02) was worse for patients with RASB vs. POPS. There was no difference in 5-year local recurrence free survival (LRFS) or metastasis free survival (MFS). RASB and POPS present challenging disease processes with poor oncologic outcomes. Rates of perioperative mortality and 5-year DSS are worse for RASB when compared to POPS.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".