↓ Skip to main content

The Width of the Surgical Margin Does Not Influence Outcomes in Extremity and Truncal Soft Tissue Sarcoma Treated With Radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Oncologist, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Width of the Surgical Margin Does Not Influence Outcomes in Extremity and Truncal Soft Tissue Sarcoma Treated With Radiotherapy
Published in
Oncologist, July 2016
DOI 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0534
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rima Ahmad, Alex Jacobson, Francis Hornicek, Alex B. Haynes, Edwin Choy, Gregory Cote, G. Petur Nielsen, Yen-Lin Chen, Thomas F. DeLaney, John T. Mullen

Abstract

It is unclear whether the quantitative width of the surgical margin influences outcomes in patients with extremity and truncal soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with radiotherapy (RT). We performed a retrospective review of 382 patients with localized extremity or truncal STS who underwent limb-sparing surgery and RT from 1983 to 2010, and we analyzed the significance of resection margin status and quantitative margin width on outcomes. Surgical margins were positive in 68 (18%) patients and negative in 314 (82%) patients. For those patients with a reported quantitative margin width (n = 235), the width of the negative margin was ≤1 mm (n = 128), >1 mm and ≤5 mm (n = 79), and >5 mm (n = 28). At a median follow-up of 82 months, the local recurrence rates were 5.4% and 11.8% for margin-negative and margin-positive patients, respectively. There were no differences in the rates of local or distant recurrence nor of any survival outcome based on the quantitative width of the surgical margin, provided that it was negative. In patients undergoing RT and limb-sparing surgery for STS, achieving a negative margin is essential for optimizing both local control and survival. However, the absolute quantitative width of the negative margin does not significantly influence outcome, and so attempts at wide margins of resection appear to be unnecessary. Importantly, the conclusions drawn from this study must not be applied to those patients undergoing surgery alone as the local treatment of their STS, in which case wider margins of resection may be necessary. In patients undergoing radiation therapy and limb-sparing surgery for soft tissue sarcoma, the quantitative width of the negative margin does not influence outcome, and so attempts at wide margins of resection appear to be unnecessary, especially when such attempts compromise the functional outcome. Importantly, the conclusions drawn from this study must not be applied to those patients undergoing surgery alone as the local treatment of their soft tissue sarcoma, in which case wider margins of resection may be necessary.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 18%
Professor 2 18%
Unspecified 2 18%
Student > Master 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 55%
Unspecified 4 36%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,686,927
of 9,728,255 outputs
Outputs from Oncologist
#892
of 1,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,607
of 264,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oncologist
#29
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,728,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 50th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 264,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.