SynthesisBJS open2026
Mayo Clinic classification of presacral tumors: evolution of classifications and systematic review of pathologies.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPresacral tumours are rare, heterogeneous lesions. Historical classification systems for presacral tumours have provided a valuable framework, but were based on limited available data. This study aimed to develop a contemporary classification aligned with current tumour entities and clinical practice.
methodsA prospectively registered systematic review of surgically managed presacral tumours published from 1975 to 2025 was combined with a retrospective multisite institutional surgical pathology review from 1986 to 2025. Pathological descriptors were extracted, cross-referenced, harmonized to current terminology, and organized through multidisciplinary expert review to obtain a new classification.
resultsThe systematic review identified 5997 records, of which 203 studies met the inclusion criteria and contributed 181 pathological terms after generic and unclassifiable diagnoses were removed. Review of 3606 pathology reports identified 19 additional terms, bringing the total to 200 pathological terms. After harmonization to current terminology and exclusion of non-neoplastic processes, a contemporary classification was developed using biological descriptors: developmental versus acquired origin; tissue lineage (neurogenic, osseous/haematopoietic, soft tissue, or miscellaneous); and tumour behaviour (benign, locally recurrent without metastatic potential, locally recurrent with low metastatic potential, malignant non-sarcoma, or malignant sarcoma).
conclusionThe Mayo Clinic classification of presacral tumours updates historical systems by reflecting the broader, more modern spectrum of neoplasms and distinguishing lesions by lineage and biological behaviour. It may improve diagnostic clarity, communication, and selection of appropriate observation, multidisciplinary assessment, and treatment pathways.
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.