Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35273696›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2022

Development and validation of a prognostic score at baseline diagnosis for Ewing sarcoma family of tumors: a retrospective single institution analysis of 860 patients.

Archana Sasi, Shuvadeep Ganguly, Bivas Biswas, Deepam Pushpam, Akash Kumar, Sandeep Agarwala, Shah Alam Khan, Venkatesan Sampath Kumar, Suryanarayana Deo, Daya Nand Sharma and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ewing sarcoma of the sphenoid bone: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Archana SasiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Shuvadeep GangulyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Bivas BiswasDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Medical Centre Kolkata, India.
Deepam PushpamDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Akash KumarDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute Jhajjar, Haryana, India.
Sandeep AgarwalaDepartment of Paediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Shah Alam KhanDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Venkatesan Sampath KumarDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Suryanarayana DeoDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Daya Nand SharmaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Ahitagni BiswasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Asit MridhaDepartment of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Adarsh BarwadDepartment of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Sanjay ThulkarDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.
Sameer BakhshiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrognostic scores in Ewing sarcoma including baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics are necessary for pre-treatment risk stratification. In this study, we formulated and validated a prognostic model for baseline risk categorization in Ewing sarcoma. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective single-institutional study was conducted on Ewing sarcoma patients treated uniformly between January 2003 and December 2018. Baseline clinical/pathological characteristics and survival outcomes were noted from medical records. The cohort was randomised into a derivation and validation cohort. A prognostic score was formulated by including independent prognostic factors from the derivation cohort by multivariable analysis. The prognostic model was validated in the validation cohort along with estimation of its predictive ability.

resultsA total of 860 patients were included with 40.3% having baseline metastases. Tumor diameter >5 cm (HR 2.04; P<0.001; score 2), baseline metastases (HR 2.33; P<0.001, score 2), and total leucocyte count >11000/mm

conclusionsWe have formulated and validated a prognostic score for Ewing sarcoma incorporating baseline clinical and laboratory parameters, with fair predictive ability for risk stratification and facilitating risk-adapted personalized therapy.

Indexed as

Ewing sarcomaoutcomeprimitive neuroectodermal tumorprognosisscore

Identifiers

PMID35273696
PMCPMC8902524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.