ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2026
Optimising Clinical Outcomes Following R1 Resection in Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Evidence-Based Approach.
Review in Current treatment options in 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
opinion statementMicroscopically positive surgical margins (R1) complicate 15-30% of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) resections and independently worsen local recurrence and overall survival, yet no randomised trial has targeted the R1 population; we recommend risk-adapted management directed by a multidisciplinary team at a specialist sarcoma centre. Decision-making should integrate histological subtype, tumour grade, anatomical site, margin context, and individualised prognostic risk estimated by validated nomograms such as Sarculator and PERSARC. Planned positive margins on critical anatomical structures, most often encountered in retroperitoneal sarcoma, do not mandate re-excision, as local recurrence rates approximate those of R0 resection, and management should proceed directly to histotype-tailored adjuvant radiotherapy where indicated. Inadvertent positive margins after unplanned or non-specialist excision carry a substantially higher local recurrence risk and warrant re-excision whenever secondary R0 is achievable without prohibitive morbidity, followed by adjuvant radiotherapy in high-grade or deep tumours. When further surgery is not feasible, adjuvant radiotherapy alone remains the standard adjunct and substantially reduces local recurrence in extremity STS. Adjuvant anthracycline-ifosfamide chemotherapy should be considered in patients identified as high-risk by validated nomograms, in whom R1 status is the strongest predictor of survival benefit. Active surveillance with structured imaging follow-up is a reasonable option for small, low-grade R1 tumours at sites of prohibitive re-excision morbidity. Referral to a specialist sarcoma centre before any initial intervention remains the single most impactful measure to reduce R1 incidence and optimise oncological outcomes and should be regarded as the overarching standard of care.
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.