ArticleESMO open2025
Landscape of ultra-rare sarcomas: a nationwide study for epidemiology and prognosis.
Article in ESMO open, 2025. 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.
- How I treat soft tissue sarcomas.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of 'ultra-rare sarcoma' was established to raise awareness of the clinical challenges resulting from its rarity. Given the novelty of this classification and the consequent paucity of data, this study aimed to investigate the epidemiology and prognosis of ultra-rare sarcomas.
designWe analyzed data from the Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Registry in Japan from 2001 to 2019, comparing ultra-rare and non-ultra-rare sarcomas. To assess the prognostic impact of ultra-rare sarcomas, we used Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with propensity score matching, multivariate analysis, and a machine learning technique known as random survival forest.
resultsAmong the 22 821 patients analyzed, ultra-rare sarcomas accounted for 18.9% of the cases. Ultra-rare bone sarcomas were older than non-ultra-rare bone sarcomas (mean age: 57.6 versus 39.2 years, P < 0.001), while ultra-rare soft tissue sarcomas appeared in younger patients (mean age: 49.4 versus 62.2 years, P < 0.001). For patients >80 years old with bone sarcomas and those <20 years old with soft tissue sarcomas, ultra-rare sarcomas constituted approximately half of the cases. Survival analysis indicated that ultra-rare bone sarcomas were associated with longer survival (P = 0.022), whereas ultra-rare soft tissue sarcomas showed no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.052). When stratified by age, however, patients <40 years old with ultra-rare soft tissue sarcomas had shorter survival (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated hazard ratios of 0.73 for ultra-rare bone and 1.25 for ultra-rare soft tissue sarcomas. Random survival forest showed that the importance of ultra-rare sarcomas was relatively low compared with other parameters.
conclusionUltra-rare sarcomas are more common among older bone sarcoma patients and younger soft tissue sarcoma patients. Young patients with ultra-rare soft tissue sarcomas have a significantly worse prognosis. Overall, while ultra-rare sarcomas have a generally minor impact on prognosis, their effects are more pronounced in specific age groups.
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.