Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33054722›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Limb salvage versus amputation in patients with osteosarcoma of the extremities: an update in the modern era using the National Cancer Database.

Daniel R Evans, Alexander L Lazarides, Julia D Visgauss, Jason A Somarelli, Dan G Blazer, Brian E Brigman, William C Eward

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Feasibility of a NovelClinics in orthopedic surgery · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Chondrosarcoma: A Clinical Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel R EvansDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Alexander L LazaridesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Hospital, 311 Trent Drive, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. Alexander.lazarides@duke.edu.
Julia D VisgaussDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Hospital, 311 Trent Drive, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Jason A SomarelliDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Dan G BlazerDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Brian E BrigmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Hospital, 311 Trent Drive, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
William C EwardDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Hospital, 311 Trent Drive, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Duke University Hospital · USDuke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHistorically, amputation was the primary surgical treatment for osteosarcoma of the extremities; however, with advancements in surgical techniques and chemotherapies limb salvage has replaced amputation as the dominant treatment paradigm. This study assessed the type of surgical resection chosen for osteosarcoma patients in the twenty-first century.

methodsUtilizing the largest registry of primary osteosarcoma, the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we retrospectively analyzed patients with high grade osteosarcoma of the extremities from 2004 through 2015. Differences between patients undergoing amputation and patients undergoing limb salvage are described. Unadjusted five-year overall survival between patients who received limb salvage and amputation was assessed utilizing Kaplan Meier curves. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model and propensity matched analysis was used to determine the variables independently correlated with survival.

resultsFrom a total of 2442 patients, 1855 underwent limb salvage and 587 underwent amputation. Patients undergoing amputation were more likely to be older, male, uninsured, and live in zip codes associated with lower income. Patients undergoing amputation were also more likely to have larger tumors, more comorbid conditions, and metastatic disease at presentation. After controlling for confounders, limb salvage was associated with a significant survival benefit over amputation (HR: 0.70; p < 0.001). Although this may well reflect underlying biases impacting choice of treatment, this survival benefit remained significant after propensity matched analysis of all significantly different independent variables (HR: 0.71; p < 0.01).

conclusionAmong patients in the NCDB, amputation for osteosarcoma is associated with advanced age, advanced stage, larger tumors, greater comorbidities, and lower income. Limb salvage is associated with a significant survival benefit, even when controlling for significant confounding variables and differences between cohorts.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAmputation, SurgicalDatabases, FactualExtremitiesFemaleHumansLimb SalvageMaleOsteosarcomaRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisUnited StatesYoung AdultAmputationLimb salvage surgeryOsteosarcomaOsteosarcoma of the extremitiesOverall survival

Identifiers

PMID33054722
PMCPMC7557006
OpenAlexW3093057672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.