MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116747675 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000007001

Accuracy of Histology and Malignancy Grade Between Preoperative Biopsy and Surgical Specimens in Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma. A Study From the Prospective Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Registry (RESAR)

2025· article· en· W7116747675 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandra Borghi, M. Fiore, Gabriele Tinè, D. Strauß, S. Bonvalot, Chandrajit P. Raut, Piotr Rutkowski, Samuel Ford, Carol J. Swallow, David E. Gyorki, Markus Albertsmeier, Ferdinando Cananzi, Kenneth Cardona, Carolyn Nessim, Valerie P. Grignol, Elisabetta Pennacchioli, Marko Novak, Shintaro Iwata, D. Salvatore, Elena Di Blasi, Michelle Wilkinson, Dimitri Tzanis, J. Wang, Jacek Skoczylas, Max L. Almond, Rebecca A. Gladdy, Catherine Mitchell, Andrew Hayes, Sergio Valeri, Rosalba Miceli, Alessandro Gronchi, on behalf of the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalignancyBiopsyHistologySarcomaPreoperative careProspective cohort studyRetroperitoneal space

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to prospectively assess the accuracy of preoperative biopsy in primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) across sarcoma referral centers. BACKGROUND: Histologic subtype and malignancy grade are key for guiding RPS treatment strategies. However, the accuracy of preoperative biopsy remains uncertain. METHODS: Data on adult patients with primary localized RPS who underwent preoperative biopsy followed by curative-intent surgery (2017-2020) were collected from the Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Registry. The study aimed to assess concordance between biopsy and surgical specimen histology and grade, using the Cohen kappa statistic. Concordance was also analyzed by center volume (high ≥13 vs. low <13 cases/year). RESULTS: Of 894 enrolled patients, histologic concordance was observed in 87.7% of cases (unweighted κ=0.814; 95% CI: 0.773-0.854). Among 172 tumors initially diagnosed as well-differentiated liposarcomas, 44 (25.6%) were reclassified as dedifferentiated liposarcomas. Grade concordance was observed in 232 of 346 cases (76.1%; weighted κ=0.652; 95% CI: 0.589-0.715), with no difference between computed tomography-guided and ultrasound-guided biopsies. Concordance by tumor grade was 98.9% (grade 1), 62.1% (grade 2), and 40.2% (grade 3). In dedifferentiated liposarcomas, grade concordance was 59.7% (weighted κ=0.385; 95% CI: 0.292-0.479). High-volume centers showed higher concordance for both histology (κ=0.780) and grade (κ=0.680) compared with low-volume centers (κ=0.622 and 0.564, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although preoperative biopsy for RPS provides satisfactory histologic accuracy, tumor grade is frequently underestimated. This diagnostic inaccuracy may impact treatment decisions, particularly regarding preoperative therapies. Incorporating additional diagnostic factors may improve the accuracy of preoperative assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207