ArticleCancer medicine2024
Lumbar functional evaluation of pelvic bone sarcomas after surgical resection and spinal pelvic fixation: A clinical study of 304 cases.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsWe endeavored to introduce a novel scoring system (Lumbar Functional Index, LFI) capable of evaluating lumbar function in pelvic bone sarcoma patients who underwent surgical resection and spinal pelvic fixation, while simultaneously identifying the incidence, outcomes, and risk factors of lumbar function impairment among these populations. PATIENTS AND
methodsA cohort of 304 primary bone sarcoma patients were recruited. The LFI was created based on the Oswestry Dysfunction Index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Lumbar function impairment was defined as LFI score ≥ 18 points, which was identified as high LFI. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, and oncological outcomes were analyzed.
resultsThe cohort included chondrosarcoma (39.8%), osteosarcoma (29.9%), Ewing sarcoma (8.6%), bone-derived undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (7.2%), giant cell tumor of bone (7.2%), chordoma (2.3%), and other bone sarcomas (5.0%). The LFI score exhibited significant negative correlation with common scoring systems of bone sarcoma. The incidence of high LFI was 23.0%. Patients with high LFI demonstrated a higher prevalence of type I + II + III + IV pelvic tumor, more sacrificed nerve roots and bilateral lumbar spine fixation during surgery, while lower percentage of R0 resection and local control of pelvic tumor. Decreased median overall survival (30 vs. 52 months, p < 0.001) and recurrence-free survival (14 vs. 24 months, p < 0.001) time were observed in these patients. Type I + II + III + IV pelvic tumor and sacrificed nerve roots≥2 were identified as risk factors for high LFI, while R0 resection and local control were identified as protective factors.
conclusionThe LFI scoring system exhibited a significant negative correlation to current scoring systems. High LFI patients had worse prognosis and distinct characteristics. The risk factors of high LFI included type I + II + III + IV pelvic tumor and sacrificed nerve roots≥2, and the protective factors included R0 resection and local control.
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.