MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389001294 · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102663

A systematic review of the role of chemotherapy in retroperitoneal sarcoma by the Australia and New Zealand sarcoma association clinical practice guidelines working party

2023· review· en· W4389001294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah Zhou, Elizabeth A. Connolly, Jasmine Mar, Smaro Lazarakis, Peter Grimison, Joanna Connor, David Gyorki, Angela Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Treatment Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association
KeywordsMedicineSarcomaChemotherapyClinical PracticeOncologyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In primary localised resectable retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS), loco-regional and distant relapse occur frequently despite optimal surgical management. The role of chemotherapy in improving outcomes is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, using the population, intervention, comparison outcome (PICO) model, to evaluate whether neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy improve outcomes in adults with primary localised resectable RPS. Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central were queried for publications from 1946 to June 2022 that evaluated recurrence free survival, overall survival, and post operative complications. Each study was screened by two independent reviewers for suitability. A qualitative synthesis of the results was performed. RESULTS: Twenty three studies were identified; one meta-analysis of retrospective studies and 22 retrospective studies including three with propensity matched cohorts. Most studies did not analyse outcomes by histology, detail treatment regimens, provide baseline characteristics or selection criteria for those receiving chemotherapy. Evidence of selection bias was illustrated in several studies. Newcastle-Ottawa quality of retrospective cohort studies was good for 12 studies and poor for 10 studies. All studies were assessed as Level III-2 evidence by the Australian NHMRC hierarchy. Overall, the addition of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery was not associated with improvement in local recurrence, metastasis free survival, disease free survival or overall survival in primary localised resectable RPS. There is some evidence of an association of chemotherapy with worse overall survival. One single centre study showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with increased post operative complications compared to surgery alone in primary localised resectable RPS. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence that demonstrates the addition of chemotherapy to surgery improves outcomes in adult patients with primary localised resectable RPS. Available evidence is limited by its retrospective nature and high likelihood of selection bias with chemotherapy generally administered to patients at higher risk of recurrence and many patients not receiving care in high volume sarcoma centres. Randomised trials are required to conclusively determine the role of chemotherapy in primary localised resectable RPS.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Treatment ReviewsSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207