ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2020
Impact of centralization in primary retroperitoneal sarcoma treatment: analysis using hospital-based cancer registry data in Japan.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diurnal rhythms of urine volume and electrolyte excretion in healthy young men under differing intensities of daytime light exposure.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Surgical resection of abdominal and cardiac metastasis of thigh myxoid liposarcoma.BMJ case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo elucidate the clinicopathological features, hospital-based care volume and prognoses associated with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (PRS).
methodsClinical data on PRS cases, diagnosed from 2008 to 2009 (cohort A) and from 2012 to 2015 (cohort B), were obtained from the national hospital-based cancer registry in Japan. Since data on survival, 5 years after PRS diagnosis, were available only for cohort A, patient prognoses were analyzed in this group alone.
resultsThe numbers of participating hospitals were 154 in cohort A and 537 in cohort B. In total, 380 and 2011 patients with PRS were identified in cohorts A and B, respectively. The incidence of PRS among all the registered urogenital malignancies was 0.52% (2391/462,866). Liposarcoma was the most commonly observed PRS subtype (55.8%), followed by leiomyosarcoma (19.0%). In cohort A, the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 40.4%. The 5-year OS associated with stage I (n = 107), stages II and III (n = 61), and stage IV (n = 59) disease were 59%, 39%, and 6%, respectively. Only two institutions treated over ten patients per year in each cohort. When institutions were divided by hospital care volume (8 hospitals with ≥ = 3 cases and 149 with < 3 cases/year), there were any statistic differences in the OS.
conclusionsWe presented the distribution and prognoses associated with PRS using a real-world large cohort database. Centralization for PRS management was not established in Japan, while the prognosis did not significantly depend on the treatment volume of hospitals.
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.