ArticleJB & JS open access
Significance of Regional Lymph Node Dissection in Patients With Clear Cell Sarcoma and Epithelioid Sarcoma.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) and epithelioid sarcoma (ES) are typical examples of soft tissue sarcoma subtypes that cause lymph node metastasis (LNM). However, the role of primary regional lymph node dissection remains unclear, especially when radiological evidence of LNM is absent preoperatively. We retrospectively investigated the significance of regional lymph node dissection in patients with CCS and ES. Methods: Forty-one patients (CCS, n = 13; ES, n = 28) with no distant metastasis and with or without radiologically obvious regional LNM were enrolled in this study. Among these patients, cases without obvious LNM on imaging findings were categorized into 2 groups: the "with dissection (WD)" group and the "no dissection (ND)" group. Overall survival (OS), lymph node metastasis-free survival (LNMFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and the postoperative LNM rate were evaluated and compared between the 2 groups. Results: In total, 9 patients were suspected to have LNM based on preoperative radiological examinations. All of these patients underwent regional lymph node dissection performed simultaneously with resection of the primary tumor. Histopathological examinations confirmed the presence of regional LNMs in 4 of the 9 patients. Of the remaining 32 patients without preoperative evidence of LNM, 17 belonged to the WD group and 15 belonged to the ND group. Six of the 17 patients (35.3%) in the WD group were positive for LNM in a histopathological examination. The OS (P = 0.03), LNMFS (p < 0.01), and DFS (p < 0.01) were significantly better in the WD group. The postoperative LNM rate was significantly lower in the WD group (P = 0.03). In terms of histology, there were no significant differences in OS, LNMFS, or DFS between the CCS and ES groups. Conclusion: Even when preoperative radiology suggested no evidence, LNM was present in > 30% of all cases. Regional lymph node dissection performed simultaneously with resection of the primary tumor showed a statistically significant prognostic improvement. Level of Evidence: Prognostic studies, Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.