ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Lumbosacral spinal solitary fibrous tumors: compartment-specific surgical considerations and recurrence patterns in 60 systematically reviewed cases.
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLumbosacral spinal solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) are rare, and their clinicopathological profile, surgical management, and recurrence behavior have not been systematically characterized as a dedicated anatomical subgroup. We assembled a lumbosacral-specific cohort to describe these tumors and identify factors associated with recurrence, with particular attention to dural compartment, extent of resection, and compartment-specific surgical constraints.
methodsWe systematically reviewed reported lumbosacral spinal SFTs-both STAT6-confirmed and historically classified-together with the present case, extracting clinical, imaging, surgical, histopathological, and follow-up data. Associations with recurrence were assessed for tumor size (Mann-Whitney U test), resection extent, and dural compartment (Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank), with Cox regression for recurrence-free survival.
resultsSixty patients were included (17 STAT6-positive, 43 historically classified). Tumors were predominantly extradural (20 of 33 with a documented compartment). Locoregional recurrence or distant metastasis occurred in 21.7% (crude); the Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative probability of an RFS event was approximately 26% at 3 years and 37% at 5 years. Recurrent tumors were larger than non-recurrent tumors (median 6.7 vs. 3.0 cm; p = 0.021). Local recurrence was substantially less frequent after complete than after subtotal resection (16.1% vs. 55.6%; p = 0.029).
conclusionIn this pooled cohort, larger tumor size was associated with recurrence, and local recurrence was less frequent after complete than after subtotal resection. The dural compartment appears to influence the surgical technique and margin that can realistically be achieved rather than whether complete removal is possible: extradural tumors more often permit en bloc, margin-negative excision, whereas intradural lesions involving the cauda equina, though frequently removable in full, generally require piecemeal function-preserving removal. Given the potential for delayed recurrence, long-term postoperative surveillance is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42525258What 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.