ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Rethinking tumor viability as prognostic factor in soft tissue sarcoma.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Necrosis following neoadjuvant radiotherapy and its association with oncological outcome in soft tissue sarcoma patients: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Prognostic Role of TERT Mutations in Chondrosarcoma: Associations with Dedifferentiation, Survival, and IDH/TERT Co-Mutations.Cancers · 2026Article
- MRI-Based Delta Necrosis as a Prognostic Marker Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Soft Tissue Sarcoma.Cancers · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Histopathologic assessment of tumor viability has emerged as a potential predictive factor of outcomes in various cancers. This study evaluates the prognostic significance of viability in high-grade soft tissue sarcoma while accounting for different adjuvant regimens and clinical variables. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 147 patients surgically treated for high-grade soft tissue sarcoma between 2010 and 2021 at a single institution. Perioperative, clinical and surveillance data were collected. Tumor viability was determined through histopathologic analysis by a board-certified pathologist. Results: No significant differences in clinical variables were observed between groups with ≤10 % and >10 % tumor viability. Neoadjuvant treatments, tumor grade, size, and depth did not independently affect tumor viability. There was no statistically decreased risk of local recurrence in the group with ≤10 % viability compared to the group with >10 % viability (HR = 1.19, 95 % CI [0.57,2.50]) (p = 0.64). Margin status was the only variable that significantly increases the risk of LR on multivariate analysis. Conclusion: This cohort suggests that neoadjuvant radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or their combination did not influence tumor viability predictably. Notably, tumors without neoadjuvant treatment exhibited a high rate of necrosis, potentially confounding the interpretation of treatment effect. Other factors such as tumor type may play a more significant role in the cause of tumor necrosis than originally thought. Pathologic tissue response continues to offer value for the management of STS, but these findings underscore the need for further investigation into tumor viability in soft tissue sarcoma, targeting specific treatments analyzed in large collaborative studies.
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.