| Title |
Clinical outcomes of patients with epithelioid sarcomas: impact and management of nodal metastasis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Oncology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10147-017-1179-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hidetatsu Outani, Yoshinori Imura, Takaaki Tanaka, Satoshi Takenaka, Kazuya Oshima, Kenichiro Hamada, Shigeki Kakunaga, Susumu Joyama, Norifumi Naka, Ikuo Kudawara, Takafumi Ueda, Nobuhito Araki, Hideki Yoshikawa |
| Abstract |
An epithelioid sarcoma is a rare histological subtype of a soft tissue sarcoma with a high local recurrence rate, which frequently shows lymph node metastasis. However, because of the rarity of this tumor, the impact of nodal metastasis and its appropriate management remain unclear. The present study investigated the clinical outcomes of patients with epithelioid sarcomas, with a focus on lymph node metastasis. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 27 patients with epithelioid sarcomas treated between 1985 and 2015. The log-rank test was used to assess the prognostic variables. The overall local recurrence rate was 33%, and the estimated overall 5-year survival rate was 62%. Hand and foot locations were associated with favorable overall survival. During the follow-up period, new nodal metastasis was noted in 14 patients (52%). The incidence of local recurrence was higher in patients with new nodal metastasis than in patients who did not develop nodal metastasis. The development of new nodal metastasis had a tendency to worsen survival; however, this association was not statistically significant. Lymphadenectomy did not affect overall survival. Peripheral tumor location is associated with a better prognosis. The development of new nodal metastasis tends to be associated with poor prognosis; however, among patients with nodal metastasis, resection of the metastatic lesions has a low impact on survival. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 50% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#15,475,586
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Oncology
#395
of 921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,460
of 318,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Oncology
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 921 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.