ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2020
Retrospective quality of life study in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma in an Asian population.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Twenty-five years of experience with patient-reported outcome measures in soft-tissue sarcoma patients: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- Tumor grade and symptoms at presentation are survival risk factors in Chinese patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2022Article
- Article
- Retroperitoneal Sarcomas: a Current Review on Management.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRetroperitoneal sarcoma represents 15% of sarcomas. The mainstay of treatment is surgery where a majority of patients require multi-visceral resections that may significantly impact their quality of life (QOL) following surgery. Studies in other cancers have shown that QOL may not be significantly impacted after radical or extensive surgery. However, there are limited studies examining the QOL specifically in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma. In this pilot study, we retrospectively evaluated the QOL of patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma.
methods32 out of 90 patients who underwent surgical intervention for retroperitoneal sarcoma in National Cancer Centre Singapore from January 1999 to August 2018 who were alive and on follow-up were included in this study. EORTC-QLQ-C30 was administered to the patients.
resultsThe median age of our patients was 59 years (range, 35-84), and median time from surgery to the implementation of questionnaire was 2.5 years (range, 0.05-9.6). Younger patients had significantly better differences in global health, physical and role functioning scores as compared to older individuals. Female patients reported higher global health, physical, emotional and social functioning scores than males. Patients who were more than 2 years post-surgery exhibited better QOL scores as compared to those who had more recent surgery. Our patients had comparable global health and functioning scores compared to a reference group of outpatient cancer patients at our institution.
conclusionsOur pilot study investigating the QOL of patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma has shown that patients need to be followed up for at least 2 years following surgery to evaluate their QOL. In general, they achieved better functioning scores when compared with other cancer patients. These findings support the need for larger-scale prospective studies to further evaluate the QOL of these patients.
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.