Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab, radiation therapy, and surgery versus radiation therapy and surgery for stage III soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity (SU2C-SARC032): an open-label, randomised clinical trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab, radiation therapy, and surgery versus radiation therapy and surgery for stage III soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity (SU2C-SARC032): an open-label, randomised clinical trial.
Item: Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab, radiation therapy, and surgery versus radiation therapy and surgery for stage III soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity (SU2C-SARC032): an open-label, randomised clinical trial.
Rating: 96
Author: Αlpha¹

Mowery YM, Ballman KV, Hong AM, Schuetze SM, Wagner AJ, Monga V, Heise RS, Attia S, Choy E, Burgess MA, Bae S, Pryor DI, Van Tine BA, Tinoco G, Chmielowski B, Freeman C, Gronchi A, Meyer CF, Dickson MA, Hartner L, Davis LE, Powers BC, Moding EJ, Weinhold KJ, van de Rijn M, Brigman BE, Riedel RF, Kirsch DG

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3.25★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab, radiation therapy, and surgery versus radiation therapy and surgery for stage III soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity (SU2C-SARC032): an open-label, randomised clinical trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 16, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3.25 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×3−1.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 2 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed. These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced4 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Data authenticity concerns1

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Other integrity concernAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted randomized phase 2/3 trial with rigorous design, clear reporting of biological variables, ethical approvals, and statistical methods. The main weakness is the vague data sharing statement, which lacks a concrete mechanism for access. Minor reporting gaps include the absence of an explicit reporting guideline and lack of clarity on the safety population denominator.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions and agreed on all statuses; no divergence. The study is an interventional clinical trial; animal-related criteria were marked not applicable. The statistics verification covered only 2 tests (those with test statistics/CI); the remaining statistics were not machine-verified and should not be assumed correct. The citation check found no retracted or unresolved references.

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 via agent-written checks.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites SARC028 and other studies showing pembrolizumab activity in UPS and LPS, and discusses the rationale for combining ICB with RT. The hypothesis follows logically from the cited evidence. Limitations of prior research are acknowledged, such as the lack of randomized trials demonstrating a DFS benefit.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study clearly establishes its scientific premise by citing prior research on pembrolizumab activity in soft tissue sarcoma and the rationale for combining immunotherapy with radiation.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“Objective responses to the anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab occurred in 23% of patients with metastatic undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) and 10% with pleomorphic or dedifferentiated liposarcoma (LPS) in SARC028.”