prognostic factors in osteosarcoma: a study level meta-analysis and systematic review of current practice

Clicks: 373
ID: 130420
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #2 of 8 articles by views in molecular cancer research

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background: A consensus has not yet been reached regarding the abilities of gender, age, tumor size, tumor location, histologic subtypes, and surgery in the prediction of survival in osteosarcoma. We aimed to disclose their prognostic significance by conducting a meta-analysis of all the published data from the last decade. Materials and Methods: Electronic database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant articles published within the last ten years. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained to evaluate the prognostic values of the target factors. Results: A total of 18,126 patients from 40 studies were eventually included. Results indicated that gender (male vs. female: 1.21, 95% CI, 1.11–1.32; female vs. male: 0.85, 95% CI, 0.75–0.98), age (12–20 vs. ≤12: 1.37, 95% CI, 1.13–1.65; ≥20 vs. <20: 1.29, 95% CI, 1.08–1.55; ≥40 vs. <40: 1.63, 95% CI, 1.21–2.20; ≥50 vs. <25: 2.60, 95% CI, 1.92–3.53; ≥60 vs. <60: 1.11, 95% CI, 1.06–1.18), tumor location (non-extremities vs. extremities: 2.10, 95% CI, 1.76–2.51; proximal vs. distal femur: 3.68, 95% CI: 1.51–8.96; proximal vs. distal humerus: 3.15, 95% CI: 1.53–6.49), tumor size (≥5 vs. <5: 1.42, 95% CI, 1.09–1.86; >8 vs. ≤8: 1.55, 95% CI, 1.07–2.24; >9 vs. ≤9: 1.44, 95% CI, 1.05–1.96), chemotherapy response (poor vs. good: 2.45, 95% CI, 2.02–2.97; good vs. poor: 0.41, 95% CI, 0.34–0.48), and surgery (yes vs. no: 0.45, 95% CI, 0.36–0.57; amputation vs. salvage: 2.34, 95% CI, 1.47–3.74) were significantly associated with overall survival in osteosarcoma patients. Conclusion: The meta-analysis demonstrated that male patients, older age, large tumor size, non-extremity osteosarcoma, proximal osteosarcoma, poor chemotherapy response, no surgical treatment, and amputation surgery were correlated with a poor prognosis in osteosarcoma patients. Keywords: Prognosis, Osteosarcoma, Clinicopathology, Meta-analysis
Reference Key
xin2020journalprognostic Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Sun Xin;Guo Wei
Journal molecular cancer research
Year 2020
DOI
DOI not found
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.