ArticleJCO global oncology2025
Prognostic Modeling for Bone Sarcomas Based on a Large Prospective Cohort From a Tertiary Care Cancer Center in India.
Article in JCO global oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOutcomes of adolescents and young adults (AYA) with bone sarcomas including osteosarcoma (OGS) and Ewing sarcoma (ES) are affected by various factors including inadvertent previous treatment and poor compliance. We aimed to develop a risk-scoring system derived and validated at a tertiary care cancer center in India.
methodsAll AYA OGS and ES cases treated at our institute with OGS-12 and Ewing's family of tumors-2001 (EFT-2001) protocols from 2011 to 2021 and 2013 to 2018, respectively, were prospectively analyzed. Weighted scores provided to each prognostic variable on the basis of approximate ratios of the beta coefficients of each factor in the multivariable model were summated to divide patients into three clinically discriminatory risk groups, validated by applying separately to derivation, validation, and whole cohorts.
resultsAmong 606 (81.0%) of 748 AYA with nonmetastatic OGS, significant factors included in the prognostic model were failure to complete protocol (hazard ratio [HR], 2.65), previous treatment (HR, 2.93), necrosis <90% (HR, 1.63), joint involvement (HR, 2.0), and serum alkaline phosphatase >median (204 U/L; HR, 1.63). Of 104 (39.5%) of 263 AYA with ES, significant factors were failure to complete protocol (HR, 2.84), previous treatment (HR, 6.37), necrosis <100% (HR, 8.73), and tumor size >8 cm (HR, 2.64). For 142 (38.8%) of 366 AYA with metastatic OGS, significant factors were failure to complete protocol (HR, 5.29), metastases not amenable to local treatment (HR, 1.96), necrosis <90% (HR, 1.96), and >10 metastases (HR, 2.44). For 38 (43.6%) of 82 AYA with metastatic extremity ES, significant factors were failure to complete protocol (HR, 3.88) and metastases not amenable to local treatment (HR, 10.6).
conclusionWe developed simple, effective prognostic models for AYA with bone sarcomas with specific potential relevance for low- and middle-income countries.
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.