ArticleScientific reports2025
Impact of resection margins on local recurrence in patients with myxofibrosarcoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How much is enough? Defining the critical resection margin in myxofibrosarcoma.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of resection margins on rates of local control in patients with myxofibrosarcoma (MFS). We performed a retrospective cohort study of 135 patients with myxofibrosarcoma, treated at the Department of Orthopaedics of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria from December 1999 to October 2023. Resection margins were analysed with Enneking’s established classification scheme as well as Union internationale contre le cancer (UICC) classification. Local recurrence (LR) was reported for 14 patients (10.37%). There was no statistically significance for the influence of width of resection margins (neither UICC classification system, nor Enneking’s) on the LR rate, except for R1-dir status in the UICC-classification (p = 0.028), meaning there was microscopic tumour contamination of margins or resection alongside and macroscopic residual tumour in R2a status (p = 0.037). There was no statistical difference of resection with wide or marginal resection margins. We can carefully suppose that width of resection margins do not seem to be crucial for local recurrence in MFS, although there is a significant risk for local recurrence in R1 resections. Further investigations on the risk factors for local recurrence are needed.
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.