Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33241208›Full record

ArticleClinical pathology (Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, Calif.)

Ewing Sarcoma With Emphasis on Extra-skeletal Ewing Sarcoma: A Decade's Experience From a Single Centre in India.

Sudha S Murthy, S Challa, Kvvn Raju, S J Rajappa, D Fonseca, S D Gundimeda, B V Rao, F Ahmed, S Kodandapani, L Nambaru and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pathology (Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, Calif.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sudha S MurthyDepartment of Pathology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6406-7659
S ChallaDepartment of Pathology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Kvvn RajuDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
S J RajappaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
D FonsecaDepartment of Pathology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
S D GundimedaDepartment of Pathology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
B V RaoDepartment of Pathology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
F AhmedDepartment of Pathology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
S KodandapaniDepartment of Pathology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
L NambaruDepartment of Pathology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1628-3258
M C MundadaDepartment of Pathology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
R SharmaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
K M MallavarapuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
V C KoppulaDepartment of Radiology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
T S RaoDepartment of Radiology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe diagnosis of Ewing sarcoma family of tumours (ESFT) is challenging, especially in adults and in extra-skeletal or visceral location. Several morphologic mimics with varied treatment options and prognosis confer diagnostic dilemmas. Application of ancillary diagnostic modalities in surgical pathology in clinical routine has enabled accurate diagnosis of ESFT in bone, soft tissues, and viscera.

aimThe study aims to assess the clinicopathological features including molecular test results of ESFT with emphasis on sex, age, and location, especially extra-skeletal soft tissue and visceral location. MATERIAL AND

methodsData of clinicopathological, molecular tests (wherever performed), diagnosis rendered in 302 ESFT over a decade from our centre were reviewed. Statistical comparison of skeletal and extra-skeletal tumours with reference to age and sex was done using SPSS package. The

resultsThe cohort included 302 ESFTs with 49% skeletal and 51% extra-skeletal tumours. Thigh was most common site among skeletal tumours; chest wall, paraspinal location, and retroperitoneum among soft tissues (39.4%); and kidney, ovary, and cervix among visceral tumours (11.3%). Fluorescence in situ hybridisation for

conclusionsThe study showed statistically significant differences in the age, sex, and location between skeletal and extra-skeletal ESFT. The increased percentage of extra-skeletal tumours especially in viscera was attributed to the increased awareness and availability of ancillary techniques.

Indexed as

Ewing sarcoma family of tumoursextra-skeletalfluorescence in situ hybridisationreverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reactionskeletalvisceral

Identifiers

PMID33241208
PMCPMC7672761
OpenAlexW3103045455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.