ArticleCancer medicine2024
Proteomic profiling improves prognostic risk stratification of the Sarculator nomogram in soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities and trunk wall.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CINSARC and Sarculator in Patients with Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: A Combined Analysis of Single-Institution Data and the EORTC-STBSG-62092 Trial (STRASS).Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025Article
- Proteomic profiling improves prognostic risk stratification of the Sarculator nomogram in soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities and trunk wall.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-risk soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities and trunk wall (eSTS), as defined by the Sarculator nomogram, are more likely to benefit from (neo)adjuvant anthracycline-based therapy compared to low/intermediate-risk patients. The biology underpinning these differential treatment outcomes remain unknown.
methodsWe analysed proteomic profiles and clinical outcomes of 123 eSTS patients. A Cox model for overall survival including the Sarculator was fitted to individual data to define four risk groups. A DNA replication protein signature-Sarcoma Proteomic Module 6 (SPM6) was evaluated for association with clinicopathological factors and risk groups. SPM6 was added as a covariate together with Sarculator in a multivariable Cox model to assess improvement in prognostic risk stratification.
resultsDNA replication and cell cycle proteins were upregulated in high-risk versus very low-risk patients. Evaluation of the functional effects of CRISPR-Cas9 gene knockdown of proteins enriched in high-risk patients using the cancer cell line encyclopaedia database identified candidate drug targets. SPM6 was significantly associated with tumour malignancy grade (p = 1.6e-06), histology (p = 1.4e-05) and risk groups (p = 2.6e-06). Cox model analysis showed that SPM6 substantially contributed to a better calibration of the Sarculator nomogram (Index of Prediction Accuracy = 0.109 for Sarculator alone versus 0.165 for Sarculator + SPM6).
conclusionsRisk stratification of patient with STS is defined by distinct biological pathways across a range of cancer hallmarks. Incorporation of SPM6 protein signature improves prognostic risk stratification of the Sarculator nomogram. This study highlights the utility of integrating protein signatures for the development of next-generation nomograms.
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.