• Users Online: 316
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 121-122

Whoops! – Is it too early to judge?


Department of Surgical Oncology, TMH; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission31-Dec-2019
Date of Acceptance31-Dec-2019
Date of Web Publication24-Feb-2020

Correspondence Address:
Arindam Mondal
Department of Surgical Oncology, TMH, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/CRST.CRST_129_19

Get Permissions


How to cite this article:
Mondal A. Whoops! – Is it too early to judge?. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:121-2

How to cite this URL:
Mondal A. Whoops! – Is it too early to judge?. Cancer Res Stat Treat [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 7];3:121-2. Available from: http://www.crstonline.com/text.asp?2020/3/1/121/279087



The article on unplanned resection of soft tissue sarcomas (STSs), published in the previous issue of CRST,[1],[2] was an interesting and informative article on a problem which is so common in our Indian scenario. The study, despite including a relatively small number of patients, acts as a valuable contribution to the literature on unplanned resections for STS.

I would like to highlight a few observations in the article. Regarding the observed high incidence of unplanned resection of STS (68%), the article reports the total number of STS patients seen during the period spanning 6.5 years (June 2009–December 2015) to be 69. Did these 69 patients represent all upfront STS cases (excluding recurrent cases) seen in the tertiary care hospital in the specified period? Or did they represent only patients who underwent some form of surgical treatment? This is important to know, in order to ascertain the actual incidence of unplanned resections.

As hypothesized in the discussion, the difference in the distribution of tumor grades in the two study groups (though not statistically significant) could be a factor behind the observed difference in survival between the two groups. However, the difference in the negative resection margin status following upfront resection (of thePgroup) and re-resection (of the uP group), was also found to be nearly 6% (90.9% in planned resection vs. 96.55% in the unplanned group). It may be worthwhile to see if the difference is statistically significant and if it had any effect on the final survival of the groups in a multivariate analysis.

I would also like to point to [Table 1] in the article, which shows the wrong value for the total number and percentage of patients with local recurrences, for the necessary correction.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Pareekutty NM, Kattepur AK, Alapatt JJ, Satheesan B. Unplanned excision in soft-tissue sarcomas – Is it the unkindest cut of all? Cancer Res Stat Treat 2019;2:152-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Tiwari A. Management of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas: From state of practice to state of art. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2019;2:215-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
  [Full text]  




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed83    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded14    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal