ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2026
Clinical utility of sarcoma methylation classifiers in soft tissue sarcoma diagnosis.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSoft tissue sarcomas are rare malignant tumors of mesenchymal origin characterized by their heterogeneity and diagnosis is challenging despite integrated histopathology and molecular testing. DNA methylation profiling offers an objective approach for tumor classification, but clinical implementation data in soft tissue sarcoma remain limited.
methodsIn this single-center study, 40 tumor samples from 34 patients were evaluated by routine pathology and array-based DNA methylation profiling and classified using two versions of the sarcoma methylation classifier (V12.3 and V13.1).
resultsWith version V12.3, 16 samples (40%) achieved a high calibrated score ≥ 0.9, among which 87.5% (14/16) were consistent with the histopathologic diagnosis. With V13.1, 29 samples (72.5%) reached a high calibrated score (≥ 0.9) and the classifier's diagnosis aligned with the histopathologic diagnosis in 28 cases (96.6%).
conclusionOverall, DNA methylation-based classification is a valuable adjunct diagnostic tool to confirm or refine the histopathologic diagnosis. V13.1 substantially improved classification confidence and agreement compared with V12.3. However, a considerable subset of specimens remained below the high-confidence threshold, underscoring the need for further technical and workflow optimization before routine clinical implementation.
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.