ArticleMedicine2016
Clinical outcomes of tissue expanders on adjuvant radiotherapy of resected retroperitoneal sarcoma.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stereotactic Body Radiosurgery Associated With Rectal Displacement using Gelfoam for Sacral Chordomas: Preliminary Report of 3 Cases.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Effect of pre-operative radiation therapy on surgical outcome in retroperitoneal sarcoma.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Single-center experience with intra-abdominal liposarcoma: Optimal minimum duration for postoperative remnant tumor screening.Medicine · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the efficacy and safety of a tissue expander (TE) for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) of resected retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS).This study was conducted with 37 patients with RPS who received resection with or without TE insertion followed by RT from August 2006 to June 2012 at Samsung Medical Center. Among the 37 patients, TE was inserted in 19. The quality of TE insertion was evaluated according to the correlation of clinical target volume and retroperitoneal surface volume covered by TE and was defined as follows: excellent, ≥85%; good, 70% to 85%; fair, 50% to 70%; and poor, <50%. The median follow-up period after surgery was 47.9 months (range, 5.5-85.5 months).The quality of TE insertion was excellent in 7 (36.8%), good in 5 (26.3%), fair in 4 (21.0%), and poor in 3 (16.7%) patients. A significantly higher biologically equivalent dose (BED, α/β = 10) was used in patients who had TE insertion (median, 64.8 vs. 60.0 Gy, P = 0.01). Local control was 39.7%, and overall survival was 76.4% at 5 years. Local control was significantly higher in patients who received ≥65 Gy of BED, 100.0% in contrast to 22.8% (P = 0.01). One patient with a history of multiple tumor resections showed abdominal infection with duodenal perforation of uncertain cause but had the potential of being related to TE and/or RT. Otherwise there were no ≥grade III acute or late toxicities.TE for adjuvant RT in RPS is feasible for delivering a higher RT dose with acceptable toxicity.
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.