We have located links that may give you full text access.
Surgically treated pelvic liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma: The effect of tumor size on cancer-specific survival.
Surgical Oncology 2024 April 10
INTRODUCTION: In soft tissue pelvic liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma, it is unknown whether a specific tumor size cut-off may help to better predict prognosis, defined as cancer-specific survival (CSS). We tested whether different tumor size cut-offs, could improve CSS prediction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgically treated non-metastatic soft tissue pelvic sarcoma patients were identified (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2004-2019). Kaplan-Meier plots, univariable and multivariable Cox-regression models and receiver operating characteristic-derived area under the curve (AUC) estimates were used.
RESULTS: Overall, 672 (65 %) liposarcoma (median tumor size 11 cm, interquartile range [IQR] 7-16) and 367 (35 %) leiomyosarcoma (median tumor size 8 cm, IQR 5-12) patients were identified. The p-value derived ideal tumor size cut-off was 17.1 cm, in liposarcoma and 7.0 cm, in leiomyosarcoma. In liposarcoma, according to p-value derived cut-off, five-year CSS rates were 92 vs 83 % (≤17.1 vs > 17.1 cm). This cut-off represented an independent predictor of CSS and improved prognostic ability from 83.8 to 86.8 % (Δ = 3 %). Similarly, among previously established cut-offs (5 vs 10 vs 15 cm), also 15 cm represented an independent predictor of CSS and improved prognostic ability from 83.8 to 87.0 % (Δ = 3.2 %). In leiomyosarcoma, according to p-value derived cut-off, five-year CSS rates were 86 vs 55 % (≤7.0 vs > 7.0 cm). This cut-off represented an independent predictor of CSS and improved prognostic ability from 68.6 to 76.5 % (Δ = 7.9 %).
CONCLUSIONS: In liposarcoma, the p-value derived tumor size cut-off was 17.1 cm vs 7.0 cm, in leiomyosarcoma. In both histologic subtypes, these cut-offs exhibited the optimal statistical characteristics (univariable, multivariable and AUC analyses). In liposarcoma, the 15 cm cut-off represented a valuable alternative.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgically treated non-metastatic soft tissue pelvic sarcoma patients were identified (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2004-2019). Kaplan-Meier plots, univariable and multivariable Cox-regression models and receiver operating characteristic-derived area under the curve (AUC) estimates were used.
RESULTS: Overall, 672 (65 %) liposarcoma (median tumor size 11 cm, interquartile range [IQR] 7-16) and 367 (35 %) leiomyosarcoma (median tumor size 8 cm, IQR 5-12) patients were identified. The p-value derived ideal tumor size cut-off was 17.1 cm, in liposarcoma and 7.0 cm, in leiomyosarcoma. In liposarcoma, according to p-value derived cut-off, five-year CSS rates were 92 vs 83 % (≤17.1 vs > 17.1 cm). This cut-off represented an independent predictor of CSS and improved prognostic ability from 83.8 to 86.8 % (Δ = 3 %). Similarly, among previously established cut-offs (5 vs 10 vs 15 cm), also 15 cm represented an independent predictor of CSS and improved prognostic ability from 83.8 to 87.0 % (Δ = 3.2 %). In leiomyosarcoma, according to p-value derived cut-off, five-year CSS rates were 86 vs 55 % (≤7.0 vs > 7.0 cm). This cut-off represented an independent predictor of CSS and improved prognostic ability from 68.6 to 76.5 % (Δ = 7.9 %).
CONCLUSIONS: In liposarcoma, the p-value derived tumor size cut-off was 17.1 cm vs 7.0 cm, in leiomyosarcoma. In both histologic subtypes, these cut-offs exhibited the optimal statistical characteristics (univariable, multivariable and AUC analyses). In liposarcoma, the 15 cm cut-off represented a valuable alternative.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 April 31
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation 2024 May 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app