ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Defining benchmark values for outcomes of comprehensive resection of primary retroperitoneal liposarcoma: a retrospective multicenter study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03838718 (REtroperitoneal SArcoma Registry), which is not on this 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.
REtroperitoneal SArcoma Registry (RESAR): Prospective Collection of Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Patient's Data, Radiological and Pathological Material for the TransAtlantic Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimising Clinical Outcomes Following R1 Resection in Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Evidence-Based Approach.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
- PPARγ suppresses the tumorigenesis of retroperitoneal liposarcoma via inactivation of the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- 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
- Long-term survival with eribulin in an elderly patient with inoperable retroperitoneal well-differentiated liposarcoma: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- 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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comprehensive resection represents the standard of care for patients affected by retroperitoneal well- or dedifferentiated liposarcoma (WDLPS/DDLPS). However, reference values to indicate the best achievable results are currently lacking. As such, the study aimed to define clinically relevant benchmark values for intra- and postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing comprehensive resection for primary retroperitoneal WDLPS/DDLPS. Methods: The international, prospectively maintained Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Registry (RESAR; NCT03838718) was used to calculate benchmark values for 22 outcomes, including intraoperative factors, and rates of complications, recurrence and survival. Only low-risk patients undergoing comprehensive resection for WDLPS/DDLPS at high-volume centers between 1st January 2017 and 31st December 2021 were used to calculate the benchmark values. Specifically, "low risk" was defined as age <75 years, with minimal comorbidities, and undergoing a "standard" comprehensive resection including at least colon and kidney with or without other organs-excluding those associated with significant morbidity (e.g., pancreas). Benchmark values were defined based on the 25th or 75th percentiles of the center-level data. To validate the benchmark values, these were applied to two cohorts expected to have inferior outcomes, which were defined by changing one of the exclusion criteria; namely those treated in low-volume centers, and those with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥3 ("ASA ≥ 3"). Findings: Of the 1510 patients undergoing surgery, 147 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the benchmarking analysis. This identified benchmark values including: median duration of surgery ≤278 min, intraoperative packed red cell transfusion rate ≤30%, R0/R1 resection rate ≥89%, median length of hospital stay ≤15 days, reoperation rate ≤13%, major postoperative complication rate ≤21%, and 90-day postoperative mortality/failure-to-rescue rates of 0%. The "low-volume centers" cohort failed to meet 10 of these benchmarks, including duration of surgery (median: 293 vs. ≤278 min), R0/R1 resection rate (82% vs. ≥ 89%), major postoperative complication rate (35% vs. ≤21%), and reoperation rate (35% vs. ≤13%), whilst the "ASA ≥ 3" cohort failed to meet seven benchmarks. Interpretation: These novel benchmark values can act as reference values to which sarcoma centers or individual surgeons can compare, which may help to identify performance gaps and improve the quality of care. Funding: "
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.