ArticleSICOT-J2024
Prognostic factors for mesenchymal chondrosarcoma.
Article in SICOT-J, 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.
- Chemotherapy Strategies and Their Efficacy for Mesenchymal Chondrosarcoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMesenchymal chondrosarcoma (MCS) is a malignant, biphasic, high-grade, primitive mesenchymal tumor that has a well-differentiated, organized hyaline component. MCS has a poor prognosis, and treatment recommended for localized MCS is based on wide resection while controversy remains regarding the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prognostic factors of MCS, especially the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for localized MCS.
methodsEighty patients with MCS pathologically diagnosed between 2006 and 2022 from the Japanese National Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Registry database were analyzed retrospectively.
resultsPatients with distant metastases at presentation (n = 23) had significantly shorter survival than those without (n = 57) (5-year disease-specific survival 19.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6-50.7] vs. 79.8% [95% CI: 62.4-90.4]; p < 0.0001). In the group without distant metastasis at presentation (n = 57), R1 or R2 surgical margin was a risk factor for unfavorable local recurrence (hazard ratio (HR): 17.44 [95% CI: 2.17-139.98]; p = 0.007). There was no correlation between adjuvant radiotherapy and local recurrence rate (HR 5.18 [95% CI: 0.99-27.12]; p = 0.051). R1 or R2 surgical margin was a risk factor for unfavorable disease-specific survival (HR 17.42 [95% CI: 2.18-138.90]; p = 0.007). There was no correlation between adjuvant chemotherapy and disease-specific survival (HR 0.99 [95% CI: 0.28-3.47]; p = 0.990). DISCUSSION: Patients with MCS and distant metastases at presentation have a poor prognosis, and wide resection is important for the treatment of localized MCS. The efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy could not be determined because of the small number of patients.
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.