ArticleThe oncologist2019
Relevance of Reference Centers in Sarcoma Care and Quality Item Evaluation: Results from the Prospective Registry of the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcoma (GEIS).
Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnosis and Therapy of Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Spanish Group for Research in Sarcomas (GEIS) Guidelines.Cancers · 2025Guideline
- Socioeconomic disparities in sarcoma diagnosis, expert center access, and advocacy group awareness: a multicenter study in Southern Europe.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Optimising Clinical Outcomes Following R1 Resection in Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Evidence-Based Approach.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
- Review
- Validation of Updated Sarculator Nomogram for Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma in the United States.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Initial report from the SAR-TRACK (SELNET) registry: a multicentric international retrospective analysis on the quality of the management of limb and trunk wall soft-tissue sarcomas (2012-2022) in Ibero-American countries.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical presentation, management and outcome of 11,132 patients with liposarcoma patients: a population-based study from the NETSARC+ registry.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Review
- Primary treated versus referred trunk and extremities soft tissue sarcomas: comparative analysis of initial treatment impact on disease control.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
- Opportunities and Challenges in Soft Tissue Sarcoma Risk Stratification in the Era of Personalised Medicine.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- Management of patients with rare adult solid cancers: objectives and evaluation of European reference networks (ERN) EURACAN.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Review
- Unplanned Sarcoma Excisions: Understanding How They Happen.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Review
- The rare entity of gastrointestinal leiomyosarcomas: An Italian multicenter retrospective study in high-volume referral centers.Cancer medicine · 2023Observational
- Survival Outcomes of Ewing Sarcoma and Rhabdomyosarcoma by High- versus Low-Volume Cancer Centres in British Columbia, Canada.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Centralized and Interdisciplinary Therapy Management in the Treatment of Sarcomas.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Survival analysis of cancer patients in Portugal following the reference centre model implementation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Article
- Trabectedin use in soft-tissue sarcoma patients in a real-world setting: Data from an Italian national drug-access registry.International journal of cancer · 2023Article
- 2023 GEIS Guidelines for gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byIn Reply.2019
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReference centers (RCs) are a key point for improving the survival of patients with soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). The aim of this study was to evaluate selected items in the management of patients with STS, comparing results between RC and local hospitals (LHs). MATERIALS AND
methodsDiagnostic and therapeutic data from patients diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2011 were collected. Correlation with outcome was performed.
resultsA total of 622 sarcomas were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 40 months. Imaging of primary tumor preoperatively (yes vs. no) correlated with a higher probability of free surgical margins (77.4% versus 53.7%;
conclusionOur series indicate that selected quality-of-care items were accomplished better by RCs over LHs, all with significant prognostic value in patients with STS. Early referral to an RC should be mandatory if the aim is to improve the survival of patients with STS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This prospective study in patients diagnosed with soft-tissue sarcoma shows the prognostic impact of reference centers in the management of these patients. The magnitude of this impact encompasses all steps of the process, from the initial management (performing diagnostic biopsy) to the advanced disease setting. This is the first prospective evidence showing improvement in outcomes of patients with metastatic disease when they are managed in centers with expertise. This study provides extra data supporting referral of patients with sarcoma to reference centers.
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.