ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics
Could Routine Magnetic Resonance Imaging Detect Local Recurrence of Musculoskeletal Sarcomas Earlier? A Cost-effectiveness Study.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Guideline
- Diagnostic performance of MRI in detecting locally recurrent soft tissue sarcoma: systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Can we use MRI to detect clinically silent recurrent soft-tissue sarcoma?European radiology · 2020Article
- Systematic review on the utility of magnetic resonance imaging for operative management and follow-up for primary sarcoma-lessons from extremity sarcomas.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Review
- Musculoskeletal Oncology: Finding Its Place in the Sun!Indian journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent practice in our unit is to perform clinical assessment and plain film radiographs at regular intervals following treatment of a bone or soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Cross-sectional imaging is used in cases with a clinical suspicion of recurrence. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of this protocol to determine if earlier detection may have been possible had more intensive imaging been undertaken, and whether this may have affected outcome. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe reviewed clinical records and imaging of all patients with diagnosed local recurrence (LR) in the previous 5 years to investigate: how it was diagnosed, the site and size of recurrence, and management. A value judgment was then made as to whether earlier diagnosis may have altered treatment and/or outcome.
results161 patients with LR were identified: 87 with a STS and 74 with bone sarcoma. Median time from diagnosis to LR was 17.8 months for STS and 20.1 months for bone sarcoma. One hundred and fifteen cases (71%) were identified by the patient, 28 by routine imaging (17%), 13 by a doctor (8%), and five diagnosed by other methods. Median size of LR was 5.5 cm for STS and 5 cm for bone sarcomas. Seventy nine of the patients (49%) could have had their LR diagnosed earlier with routine imaging. Of these, 53 would have received the same treatment, but 26 (33%) could have had different treatment.
conclusionEarlier diagnosis could have led to altered management in one-third of those patients with the potential to have their LR diagnosed earlier. If all patients had regular magnetic resonance imaging, it would cost £6987 per recurrence where management was altered in imaging costs alone. We suggest a stratified approach whereby patients at highest risk of LR and those in whom early detection of LR may be easily treatable are prioritised for more intensive followup.
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.