ArticleCancers2026
Pelvic Osteosarcoma: Outcomes of Surgically Treated Patients in a Retrospective Single-Center Study.
Article in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Pelvic osteosarcoma accounts for a small proportion of osteosarcoma cases but is associated with significantly poorer outcomes than extremity tumors. This study evaluates contemporary survival outcomes and prognostic factors in a single-center cohort. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 56 patients with primary pelvic osteosarcoma treated between 2006 and 2019. Demographic characteristics, surgical margins, adjuvant therapies, local recurrence, metastasis, survival outcomes and the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) Score were assessed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for overall survival (OS), including subgroup analyses by age and Enneking classification. (3) Results: Median age at surgery was 24 years. R0 margins were achieved in 96.4% of cases. OS at 1, 3, and 5 years was 69%, 54%, and 48%, respectively. Younger patients (≤25 years) showed significantly improved 5-year OS (68%) compared with older groups. Enneking classification showed limited prognostic discrimination. Metastatic disease at any time strongly predicted inferior survival (5-year OS 30% vs. 66%). The mean MSTS score one year after operation was 14.1 points. Functional outcome showed marked variability and was strongly influenced by patient age, extent of resection, reconstruction strategy, and postoperative complications. Younger patients and those undergoing limited or non-acetabular reconstructions achieved superior functional results, whereas complex endoprosthetic reconstructions and revision-requiring complications were associated with reduced MSTS scores. (4) Conclusions: Pelvic osteosarcoma continues to be associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Younger age and absence of metastatic disease are strong predictors of improved survival. Functional outcomes are typically moderate; further advances are needed to improve results.
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.