Preoperative intensity‐modulated radiation therapy in lower extremity soft tissue sarcomas with and without dose avoidance of uninvolved skin/subcutaneous tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether dosimetric sparing of uninvolved normal tissues, including skin/subcutaneous flaps, affects acute and late toxicities in preoperative image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) for lower extremity soft tissue sarcomas (LE-STS). METHODS: Patients with LE-STS from a phase 2 preoperative IG-IMRT trial (flap-sparing-IMRT, 2005-2009) and a prospectively maintained institutional database (standard-IMRT, 2005-2020) were propensity matched by age, sex, tumor size, grade, location, wound closure, and interval from IG-IMRT to surgery; all received 50 Gy in 25 fractions preoperatively. The primary outcome was major wound complication (MWC). Secondary outcomes were late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicities, functional scores (Toronto Extremity Salvage Score [TESS]; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scales [MSTS-87 or MSTS-93]), and oncologic outcomes. Kaplan-Meier estimates, cumulative incidence functions, and linear, logistic, and Cox regression were used, as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients who received flap-sparing-IMRT were 1:5 matched to 275 patients who received standard-IMRT (median follow-up, 104 vs. 56 months, respectively). Regression analyses identified no significant association between treatment technique and MWCs (29% vs. 27%; odds ratio, 0.92; p = .77), late grade 2 or greater toxicities: subcutaneous fibrosis (15% vs. 8%), joint stiffness (5% vs. 2%), edema (11% vs. 10%), fracture (2% vs. 4%), or functional outcomes (TESS, 87 vs. 89; MSTS-87, 33 vs. 33; and MSTS-93, 93 vs. 97; all p > .1). Five-year overall survival (83.6% vs. 75.2%), disease-free survival (65.5% vs. 64.1%), local recurrence (5.2% vs. 7.3%), distant metastasis (29.1% vs. 30.1%) were also comparable (p > .1). CONCLUSIONS: Flap-sparing-IMRT with specific avoidance of uninvolved skin/subcutaneous tissues demonstrated minimal differences in MWCs, late toxicity, and functional and oncologic outcomes compared with standard-IMRT in patients with LE-STS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".