The Role of Surgery in Oligometastatic Retroperitoneal Sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retroperitoneal sarcomas are extremely rare, comprising <15% of primary sarcomas. Distant metastasis occurs in about 20% of cases, with pulmonary and hepatic metastasis as the most common sites of hematogenous spread. Although surgical resection is well established as the main treatment of localized primary disease, there are limited guidelines for the surgical treatment of intra-abdominal and distant metastases. There are inadequate systemic treatment options for patients with metastatic sarcoma, thereby necessitating the consideration of surgical options in carefully selected patients. Key points to consider include tumor biology, patient fitness and co-morbidities, overall prognosis, and goals of care. Multidisciplinary sarcoma tumor board discussion for each case is an essential practice in order to deliver the best care to these patients. The purpose of this review is to summarize the published literature on the past and present role of surgery in the treatment of oligometastatic retroperitoneal sarcoma in order to inform the management of this difficult disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".