ArticleCureus2024
Extent of Surgery and Survival of Osteosarcoma: A Retrospective Population-Based Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Osteosarcoma (OSC) is the most common primary bone tumor and is often managed surgically. Few prior investigations have assessed differences in OSC survival by specific surgical techniques at a national registry level. We sought to compare survival based on surgical subtypes for OSC patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Methodology We searched the SEER database for malignant OSCs diagnosed between 2000 and 2019 which were surgically managed. Separate survival comparisons were made for one and five years for wide excision (local tumor destruction or resection versus partial resection) and radical excision (radical resection with limb-sparing versus limb amputation with or without girdle resection). Results A total of 4,303 patients were included, of whom 3,587 were surgically managed. There were no survival differences between local destruction and partial resection (hazard ratio = 0.826, p = 0.303). However, younger age, lower staging, and management without radiation were associated with improved survival. The radical excision comparison showed limb amputation was associated with worse survival than limb-sparing surgery (hazard ratio = 1.531, p < 0.001). Younger age, female sex, lower stage, receipt of chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant plus adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with improved survival while Black and American Indian or Alaska Native were associated with worse survival. Conclusions Our findings show that patients managed with limb-sparing radical resection survived significantly compared to limb amputation. There were no differences in survival for wide excision surgeries. The use of a combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy also yields improved survival. OSC survival may be optimized with limb-sparing surgery with a combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.