ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024
Comprehensive treatment strategy for improving surgical resection rate of retroperitoneal sarcomas: a histology-specific approach narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Predictors of survival in dedifferentiated liposarcoma: A population-based analysis of the SEER database.Medicine · 2026Article
- A 20.1 kg adrenal cavernous haemangioma presenting as a giant retroperitoneal mass: diagnostic difficulties and operative strategy - a case report.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for perioperative precision in surgical oncology.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Recurrent retroperitoneal sarcoma: beyond resectability toward a biology-based therapeutic framework.Oncology reviews · 2026Review
- Article
- Histological Grade, Tumor Breadth, and Hypertension Predict Early Recurrence in Pediatric Sarcoma: A LASSO-Regularized Micro-Cohort Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) represents a rare and heterogeneous group of malignancies, posing significant challenges in evaluation and management. Surgery, the cornerstone of RPS treatment, critically depends on complete resection for a favorable prognosis. The extent of resection is a crucial determinant of local control and survival. This review delves into the evolution of multidisciplinary management of localized RPS, highlighting the imperative to adapt surgical strategies to tumor histology, location, and patient functional status. We explore the principles of compartmental surgery-an extended first-line approach that involves resecting adjacent viscera for wide negative margins-and its effectiveness across different histological subtypes of RPS and more limited resections for other types. Particular emphasis is placed on the heterogeneity of the disease, as various histological subtypes exhibit distinct biological behaviors. This necessitates a shift away from a one-size-fits-all treatment approach. The review analyzes the role of different surgical strategies, focusing on histological type and location. Additionally, the potential benefits of (neo)adjuvant treatments, such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, are examined, recognizing their specific histological indications and limitations. This comprehensive review consolidates recent data on surgical strategies and complementary therapies, advocating for a personalized approach tailored to histology. As understanding of the molecular and genetic underpinnings of RPS continues to evolve, so will strategies for its effective management, underscoring the need for global collaboration among specialists in this field to enhance our collective knowledge and treatment methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.