Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35965811›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022

A better overall survival (OS) for total (ipsilateral) retroperitoneal lipectomy than standard complete resection in patients with retroperitoneal liposarcoma: a comparative multi-institutional study.

Cheng-Li Miao, Ling-Ling Zhang, William W Tseng, Fa-Bo Qiu, Wei-Qi Lu, You-Guo Dai, Xiao-Song Rao, Wen-Jie Li, Gao-Kui Zhang, Jun Chen and 8 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Cheng-Li Miao *Department of Retroperitoneal Tumor Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ling-Ling Zhang *Department of Oncology, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
William W TsengDepartment of Surgery, Division of Breast, Endocrine and Soft Tissue Surgery, University of Southern California-Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Fa-Bo QiuDepartment of Retroperitoneal Tumor Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Wei-Qi LuDepartment of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
You-Guo DaiDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Kunming, China.
Xiao-Song RaoDepartment of Pathology, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wen-Jie LiDepartment of Retroperitoneal Tumor Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
Gao-Kui ZhangHBR Data Science Ltd., Beijing, China.
Jun ChenDepartment of Retroperitoneal Tumor Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wen-Qing LiuDepartment of Retroperitoneal Tumor Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiao-Bing ChenDepartment of Retroperitoneal Tumor Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
Meng-Meng XiaoDepartment of Retroperitoneal Tumor Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
Li-Chao ChaDepartment of Retroperitoneal Tumor Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Jiong-Yuan WangDepartment of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yu-Bo RenDepartment of Pathology, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hao-Yun YangHBR Data Science Ltd., Beijing, China.
Cheng-Hua LuoDepartment of Retroperitoneal Tumor Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNPeking University International Hospital · CNBeijing Institute of Big Data Research · CNQingdao University · CNThe First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University · CNUniversity of Southern California · USZhongshan Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Complete resection (CR) serves as the standard of surgical treatment for retroperitoneal liposarcoma (RPLS). Unfortunately, even at referral centers, recurrence rates are high, and CR may not address multifocal diseases, which are a common phenomenon in RPLS. We sought to retrospectively compare the clinical outcomes of RPLS patients treated with total (ipsilateral) retroperitoneal lipectomy (TRL) and CR. Because TRL remove potentially multifocal tumors in the fat, patients may have a better prognosis than CR. Methods: Patients with primary/first-recurrent RPLS who had been treated at 5 referral centers were recruited from December 2014 to June 2018. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were conducted to determine the effects of demographic, operative, and clinicopathological variables on the following primary endpoints: local recurrence (LR), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 134 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study, 53 of whom underwent TRL, and 81 of whom underwent CR. The 2 groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, presentation (primary Conclusions: TRL is a safe procedure that positively affects the OS of patients with multifocal RPLS. This novel strategy deserves further investigation in prospective studies.

Indexed as

complete R0/R1 resectionmultifocal retroperitoneal liposarcomaRetroperitoneal liposarcoma (RPLS)total (ipsilateral) retroperitoneal lipectomy (TRL)

Identifiers

PMID35965811
PMCPMC9372660
OpenAlexW4286445039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.