Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37154873›Full record

ArticleSkeletal radiology2023

Giant cell tumor of bone in the pediatric population: a retrospective study highlighting cases of metaphyseal only location and increased local recurrence rates in skeletally immature patients.

Troy Q Tabarestani, Nicole Levine, Elizabeth Sachs, Ashley Scholl, Roy Colglazier, Robert French, Rami Al-Rohil, Brian Brigman, William Eward, Julia Visgauss

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Skeletal radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Clinical and imaging characteristics of giant cell tumor in patients aged 18 and below.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Troy Q TabarestaniDuke University School of Medicine, Duke University Hospital, 40 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. tqt5@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1485-3605
Nicole LevineDepartment of Orthopedics, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Elizabeth SachsDepartment of Orthopedics, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Ashley SchollDepartment of Pathology, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Roy ColglazierDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Robert FrenchDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Rami Al-RohilDepartment of Pathology, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Brian BrigmanDepartment of Orthopedics, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
William EwardDepartment of Orthopedics, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Julia VisgaussDepartment of Orthopedics, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.
Duke University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe the presentation of giant cell tumors (GCT) of the bone in the pediatric population to (1) improve the differential diagnosis of pediatric bone tumors and (2) identify the origin of GCT. Understanding the origin of bone tumors assists in establishing appropriate diagnoses and recommending treatment options. This is particularly important in children, where evaluating the need for invasive procedures is balanced with the desire to avoid overtreatment. GCT have historically been considered epiphyseal lesions with potential metaphyseal extension. Therefore, GCT may be inappropriately excluded from the differential diagnosis of metaphyseal lesions in the skeletally immature. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe identified 14 patients from 1981 to 2021 at a single institution who had histologic confirmation of GCT and were less than 18 years old at diagnosis. Patient characteristics, tumor location, surgical treatment, and local recurrence rates were collected. RESULTS AND

conclusionsTen (71%) patients were female. Eleven (78.6%) were epiphysiometaphyseal (1 epiphyseal, 4 metaphyseal, 6 epiphysiometaphyseal). Five patients had an open adjacent physis, of which three (60%) had tumors confined solely to the metaphysis. Of the five patients with open physis, four (80%) developed local recurrence while only one patient (11%) with a closed physis had local recurrence (p value = 0.0023). Our results illustrate that for the skeletally immature, GCT can (and in our results more commonly did) occur in the metaphyseal location. These findings suggest that GCT should be included in the differential diagnosis of primary metaphyseal-only lesions in the skeletally immature.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsGiant Cell Tumor of BoneAdolescentChildEpiphysesFemaleGrowth PlateHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesBone tumorEpiphysealGiant cell tumorMetaphysealPhysisRecurrence rateSkeletally immature

Identifiers

PMID37154873
OpenAlexW4375850345

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.