Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Osteosarcoma of the Pelvis: Experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group

Ozaki, Toshifumi, Flege, Silke, Kevric, Matthias, Lindner, Norbert, Maas, Rainer, Delling, Günter, Schwarz, Rudolf, von Hochstetter, Arthur R., Salzer-Kuntschik, Mechthild, Berdel, Wolfgang E., Jürgens, Heribert, Exner, G. Ulrich, Reichardt, Peter, Mayer-Steinacker, Regine, Ewerbeck, Volker, Kotz, Rainer, Winkelmann, Winfried, Bielack, Stefan S.·2003·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To define patients and tumor characteristics as well as therapy results, patients with pelvic osteosarcoma who were registered in the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS) were analyzed. Patients and Methods: Sixty-seven patients with a high-grade pelvic osteosarcoma were eligible for this analysis. Fifteen patients had primary metastases. All patients received chemotherapy according to COSS protocols. Thirty-eight patients underwent limb-sparing surgery, 12 patients underwent hemipelvectomy, and 17 patients did not undergo definitive surgery. Eleven patients received irradiation to the primary tumor site: four postoperatively and seven as the only form of local therapy. Results: Local failure occurred in 47 of all 67 patients (70%) and in 31 of 50 patients (62%) who underwent definitive surgery. Five-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival rates were 27% and 19%, respectively. Large tumor size (P = .0137), primary metastases (P = .0001), and no or intralesional surgery (P < .0001) were poor prognostic factors. In 30 patients with no or intralesional surgery, 11 patients with radiotherapy had better OS than 19 patients without radiotherapy (P = .0033). Among the variables, primary metastasis, large tumor, no or intralesional surgery, no radiotherapy, existence of primary metastasis (relative risk [RR] = 3.456; P = .0009), surgical margin (intralesional or no surgical excision; RR = 5.619; P < .0001), and no radiotherapy (RR = 4.196; P = .0059) were independent poor prognostic factors. Conclusion: An operative approach with wide or marginal margins improves local control and OS. If the surgical margin is intralesional or excision is impossible, additional radiotherapy has a positive influence on prognosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2003.01.142

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 342

Metadata

Authors
Ozaki, T., Flege, S., Kevric, M., Lindner, N., Maas, R., Delling, G., Schwarz, R., von Hochstetter, A. R., Salzer-Kuntschik, M., Berdel, W. E., Jürgens, H., Exner, G. U., Reichardt, P., Mayer-Steinacker, R., Ewerbeck, V., Kotz, R., Winkelmann, W., & Bielack, S. S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2003-01-15
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
334-341
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2121769039
Cited by
342
References
1
FWCI
9.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Osteosarcoma of the Pelvis: Experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2003.01.142
The paper
Ozaki, T., Flege, S., Kevric, M., Lindner, N., Maas, R., Delling, G., Schwarz, R., von Hochstetter, A. R., Salzer-Kuntschik, M., Berdel, W. E., Jürgens, H., Exner, G. U., Reichardt, P., Mayer-Steinacker, R., Ewerbeck, V., Kotz, R., Winkelmann, W., & Bielack, S. S. (2003). Osteosarcoma of the Pelvis: Experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.01.142

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.