↓ Skip to main content

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high‐risk soft tissue sarcomas: A Sarculator‐based risk stratification analysis of the ISG‐STS 1001 randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer (0008543X), October 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
44 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high‐risk soft tissue sarcomas: A Sarculator‐based risk stratification analysis of the ISG‐STS 1001 randomized trial
Published in
Cancer (0008543X), October 2021
DOI 10.1002/cncr.33895
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandro Pasquali, Emanuela Palmerini, Vittorio Quagliuolo, Javier Martin‐Broto, Antonio Lopez‐Pousa, Giovanni Grignani, Antonella Brunello, Jean‐Yves Blay, Oscar Tendero, Robert Diaz‐Beveridge, Virginia Ferraresi, Iwona Lugowska, Gabriele Infante, Luca Braglia, Domenico Franco Merlo, Valeria Fontana, Emanuela Marchesi, Davide Maria Donati, Elena Palassini, Giuseppe Bianchi, Andrea Marrari, Carlo Morosi, Silvia Stacchiotti, Silvia Bagué, Jean Michel Coindre, Angelo Paolo Dei Tos, Piero Picci, Paolo Bruzzi, Rosalba Miceli, Paolo Giovanni Casali, Alessandro Gronchi

Abstract

The value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is not completely understood. This study investigated the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to prognostic stratification based on the Sarculator nomogram for STS. This study analyzed data from ISG-STS 1001, a randomized study that tested 3 cycles of neoadjuvant anthracycline plus ifosfamide (AI) or histology-tailored (HT) chemotherapy in adult patients with STS. The 10-year predicted overall survival (pr-OS) was estimated with the Sarculator and was stratified into higher (10-year pr-OS < 60%) and lower risk subgroups (10-year pr-OS ≥ 60%). The median pr-OS was 0.63 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.51-0.72) for the entire study population, 0.62 (IQR, 0.51-0.70) for the AI arm, and 0.64 (IQR, 0.51-0.73) for the HT arm. Three- and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.93) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.86) in lower risk patients and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.51-0.72) in the higher risk patients (log-rank test, P = .004). In higher risk patients, the 3- and 5-year Sarculator-predicted and study-observed OS rates were 0.68 and 0.58, respectively, and 0.85 and 0.66, respectively, in the AI arm (P = .04); the corresponding figures in the HT arm were 0.69 and 0.60, respectively, and 0.69 and 0.55, respectively (P > .99). In lower risk patients, the 3- and 5-year Sarculator-predicted and study-observed OS rates were 0.85 and 0.80, respectively, and 0.89 and 0.82, respectively, in the AI arm (P = .507); the corresponding figures in the HT arm were 0.87 and 0.81, respectively, and 0.86 and 0.74, respectively (P = .105). High-risk patients treated with AI performed better than predicted, and this adds to the evidence for the efficacy of neoadjuvant AI in STS. People affected by soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities and trunk wall are at some risk of developing metastasis after surgery. Preoperative or postoperative chemotherapy has been tested in clinical trials to reduce the chances of distant metastasis. However, study findings have not been conclusive. This study stratified the risk of metastasis for people affected by sarcomas who were included in a clinical trial testing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Exploiting the prognostic nomogram Sarculator, it found a benefit for chemotherapy when the predicted risk, based on patient and tumor characteristics, was high.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 12 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,187,496
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cancer (0008543X)
#962
of 14,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,676
of 438,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer (0008543X)
#19
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 438,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.