Primary Sarcomas of the Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature and pooled data analysis of treatment outcomes of primary sarcomas of the spine. OBJECTIVE: To examine the current literature and treatment options for primary sarcomas of the spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A paucity of literature exists on treatment outcomes of primary sarcomas of the spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two authors searched PubMed to identify articles for review, and a pooled data analysis was performed to determine overall survival for each type of surgical resection on spine sarcomas. RESULTS: In total, 1776 articles were identified, and 11 met our inclusion criteria for review. In chondrosarcoma, overall survival was significantly higher with en bloc excision when compared with piecemeal resection (HR for piecemeal resection: 4.11; 95% CI: 2.08-8.15). Subgroup analysis showed that the addition of radiation therapy after piecemeal excision increased overall survival to 60 months from 48 months with piecemeal excision alone. In osteosarcoma, there was no significant difference in overall survival between en bloc and piecemeal resection (HR for piecemeal resection: 1.76; 95% CI: 0.776-3.99). In Ewing's sarcoma, overall survival was significantly higher when a successful en bloc resection was achieved and coupled with chemotherapy and radiation therapy for local control (HR for piecemeal resection: 7.96; 95% CI: 2.12-20.1). Interestingly, when a successful en bloc resection could not be achieved, chemotherapy and radiation therapy alone had significantly higher survival than piecemeal resection (HR for piecemeal resection: 2.63; 95% CI: 1.01-6.84). A significantly higher number of local recurrences were associated with the piecemeal resection group in all types of spine sarcomas. CONCLUSION: This review and pooled data seem to favor en bloc excision for local control as the treatment of choice in primary sarcomas of the spine.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".