ReviewCurrent oncology reports2025
Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Soft-Tissue Sarcoma?
Review in Current oncology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utidelone in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma refractory to anthracycline and antiangiogenic therapy (UTISARC): a single-arm phase II study.BMC medicine · 2026Trial
- Optimising Clinical Outcomes Following R1 Resection in Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Evidence-Based Approach.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Choosing the right animal model for sarcoma research.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2026Review
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe review compares the effectiveness of neoadjuvant(pre-operative, NAC) and adjuvant(post-operative, AC) in Soft Tissue Sarcomas as this topic is controvesial and multiple new studies have been over the years. RECENT
findingsSarculator and other nomograms assess patients with a predicted 10-year OS below 60% who will benefit from perioperative chemotherapy. Further research supports perioperative chemotherapy's role. European guidelines do not recommend anthracycline and ifosfamide (AI) perioperative chemotherapy as a standard treatment for STS of the extremities and trunk. However, some studies show that AI chemotherapy can improve recurrence-free survival (RFS). The EORTC 62,771 trial found that the CYVADIC regimen (doxorubicin, dacarbazine, cyclophosphamide, vincristine) reduced RFS without affecting OS. Meanwhile, the EORTC 62,931 trial showed no effect of AI chemotherapy on RFS or OS, but a pooled analysis suggested an OS benefit for patients with R1 (microscopically positive) resections. The AI regimen shows further support from Sarculator-based data, with EORTC 62,931 analysis indicating an improvement in disease-free survival and OS in patients with low expected OS. Similar outcomes were seen in the ISG-STS 1001 study. Recently, PERSARC analysis revealed that AI chemotherapy significantly improves OS in high-grade STS patients with a low 5-year OS prediction (< 33%). NAC improves the chances of complete tumour removal, especially in large, high-grade tumours. It often reduces the need for more aggressive surgeries by shrinking tumours before surgery, leading to higher rates of successful resections with clear margins (R0). Sarculator and other nomograms assess patients with a predicted 10-year OS below 60% who will benefit from perioperative chemotherapy. Further research supports perioperative chemotherapy's role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40153167What 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.