Trial reportJournal of surgical oncology2016
Assessment of extent of surgical resection of primary high-grade osteosarcoma by treating institutions: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.
Trial report in Journal of surgical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- miR-135a Targets SMAD2 to Promote Osteosarcoma Proliferation and Migration.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- LINC00467 facilitates osteosarcoma progression by sponging miR‑217 to regulate KPNA4 expression.International journal of molecular medicine · 2021Article
- A population-based propensity-matched study of regional dissections in patients with metastatic osteosarcoma.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Long noncoding RNAAging · 2019Article
- MicroRNA-638 expression change in osteosarcoma patients via PLD1 and VEGF expression.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComplete surgical resection of primary tumors is critical for long-term control of high-grade osteosarcoma. Uniform assessment of the extent of surgical resection is important in clinical trials, though the accuracy of this reporting has been poorly studied.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients 5-40 years of age with newly diagnosed high-grade resectable osteosarcoma treated as part of the AOST0331 clinical trial at Children's Oncology Group institutions. The extent of surgical resection of the primary tumor was graded as wide or radical by the treating institution. Central assessment of the extent of resection by two orthopedic oncologists was compared with institutional assessment by reviewing pathology and operative reports.
resultsWe included 956 patients who had data available for central review. The extent of resection reported by treating institutions was 536/956 (56%) radical and 420/956 (44%) wide. The extent of resection assessed by central review was 162/956 (17%) radical and 794/956 (83%) wide. The overall discordance rate for the cohort was 43%.
conclusionsInstitutional reports of radical resection in high-grade osteosarcoma significantly over-estimate the proportion of patients undergoing radical resection. This highlights the need for centralized review and improved accuracy of reporting of the extent of resection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:351-354. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.