ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2024
Comparing epidemiological and clinical data from RPS patients documented in a German cancer registry to a cohort from TARPSWG reference centres.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 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.
- Treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma in Germany between 2000 and 2022: a retrospective analysis from the German Cancer Registry Group.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Leiomyosarcoma Therapeutic Approaches and Future Directions.Hematology/oncology clinics of North America · 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRetroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are rare, heterogeneous tumours. Treatment recommendations are mainly derived from cohorts treated at reference centres. The applicability of data from cancer registries (CR) is controversial. This work compares CR and TARPSWG (Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group) data to assess the representativeness of the TARPSWG and the applicability of the CR data.
methodsTARPSWG cohort has previously been described. The CR Baden-Württemberg cohort includes patients with primary RPS M0 (years 2016-2021, ICD-10 C.49.4/5, C48.x) who underwent surgery within 12 months. Only patients with sarcoma-typical histology codes as used for the German Cancer Society certification system were included. Patient, tumour and therapy factors as well as survival times were compared with Chi
results1000 (TARPSWG) and 364 (CR) patients were included. CR patients were older (median: 64 years vs. 58 years), had more high-grade tumours (FNCLCC 3 48.1% vs. 27.4%, p < 0.0001) and the 5-year survival rate was significantly lower (56.3% vs. 67.9%, p = 0.0015). The proportions of dedifferentiated liposarcoma (CR 37.1% vs. 37.0%) and leiomyosarcoma (CR 20.1% vs. 19.2%), and patterns of recurrence in these most frequent RPS subtypes were similar.
conclusionICD-O/ICD 10 based filters appear to be a valid tool for extracting RPS cases from CR. The similar distribution and biological behavior of distinct RPS subtypes suggests that TARPS-WG are representative, and CR data may be used to verify recommendations derived from reference centre cohorts. Complementary use of data from different sources warrants further investigation in rare cancers.
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.