Recognition of and treatment recommendations for oligometastatic disease in multidisciplinary tumor boards.
Local therapy
Multidisciplinary tumor board
Oligometastasis
Journal
Clinical and translational radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6308
Titre abrégé: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101713416
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
03
10
2022
revised:
08
11
2022
accepted:
10
11
2022
entrez:
24
11
2022
pubmed:
25
11
2022
medline:
25
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Growing evidence supports a combined modality treatment strategy for patients with oligometastatic disease. However, lack of phase III trial data and uncertainties around patient selection highlight the importance of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT) in therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to analyze the recognition of and treatment recommendations for oligometastatic patients by MDTs at a large comprehensive cancer center in order to better understand current treatment patterns of oligometastasis. For this retrospective single-center cross-sectional study, oligometastatic patients were identified by screening oncological PET and concurrent brain MRI scans conducted at our center in 2020. MDT discussions and recommendations within four weeks of the imaging diagnosis of oligometastasis were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for the addition of local therapy to standard-of-care. A total of 787 oligometastatic cases were identified. Lung cancer and mesothelioma, skin cancer, and prostate cancer were the most common histologies with 231 (29 %), 160 (20 %), and 84 (11 %) cases, respectively. Almost half of the cases (46 %) had one distant metastasis on imaging only. More than half (56 %) of all oligometastatic cases were discussed at an MDT. In 47 % of cases, for which a therapeutic recommendation was reached in an MDT, local therapy was part of the therapeutic strategy. On logistic regression analysis, oligometastatic skin cancer was significantly associated with a recommendation for local therapy (p < 0.05), whereas the number of oligometastases was not (p = 0.202). More than half of oligometastatic cases were discussed in MDTs, of which more than every second received a recommendation including the addition of local therapy. This frequency of MDT use underscores the importance of multidisciplinary decision-making, yet efforts should be increased to standardize reporting and use standard nomenclature on oligometastasis in MDTs to better frame multidisciplinary discussion.
Sections du résumé
Background and introduction
UNASSIGNED
Growing evidence supports a combined modality treatment strategy for patients with oligometastatic disease. However, lack of phase III trial data and uncertainties around patient selection highlight the importance of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT) in therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to analyze the recognition of and treatment recommendations for oligometastatic patients by MDTs at a large comprehensive cancer center in order to better understand current treatment patterns of oligometastasis.
Materials and methods
UNASSIGNED
For this retrospective single-center cross-sectional study, oligometastatic patients were identified by screening oncological PET and concurrent brain MRI scans conducted at our center in 2020. MDT discussions and recommendations within four weeks of the imaging diagnosis of oligometastasis were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for the addition of local therapy to standard-of-care.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 787 oligometastatic cases were identified. Lung cancer and mesothelioma, skin cancer, and prostate cancer were the most common histologies with 231 (29 %), 160 (20 %), and 84 (11 %) cases, respectively. Almost half of the cases (46 %) had one distant metastasis on imaging only. More than half (56 %) of all oligometastatic cases were discussed at an MDT. In 47 % of cases, for which a therapeutic recommendation was reached in an MDT, local therapy was part of the therapeutic strategy. On logistic regression analysis, oligometastatic skin cancer was significantly associated with a recommendation for local therapy (p < 0.05), whereas the number of oligometastases was not (p = 0.202).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
More than half of oligometastatic cases were discussed in MDTs, of which more than every second received a recommendation including the addition of local therapy. This frequency of MDT use underscores the importance of multidisciplinary decision-making, yet efforts should be increased to standardize reporting and use standard nomenclature on oligometastasis in MDTs to better frame multidisciplinary discussion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36420098
doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.11.008
pii: S2405-6308(22)00107-0
pmc: PMC9676209
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
123-129Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. PB cited research grants to the institution from ViewRay Inc. (Mountain View, CA, USA). NA has received grants from ViewRay Inc. and BrainLab and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Debiopharm, ViewRay and BrainLab, and non-financial support from ViewRay, all outside of the submitted work. MH has received research support from GE Healthcare, a fund by the Alfred and Annemarie von Sick legacy for translational and clinical cardiac and oncological research, and a grant by the Clinical Research Priority Program (CRRP) “Artificial Intelligence in oncological Imaging” of the University Zurich, all outside of the submitted work.
Références
Am J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug;40(4):418-422
pubmed: 25647831
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022 Nov 15;114(4):596-602
pubmed: 35908582
JAMA Oncol. 2020 May 1;6(5):650-659
pubmed: 32215577
Mol Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug;9(2):135-137
pubmed: 30101009
Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 22;15(1):89
pubmed: 32321553
Oncol Res Treat. 2019;42(3):87-94
pubmed: 30814474
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jan 11;4(1):e173501
pubmed: 28973074
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Jul;148:157-166
pubmed: 32388150
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jan;21(1):e18-e28
pubmed: 31908301
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 10;36(5):446-453
pubmed: 29240541
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep;11(9):549-57
pubmed: 24958182
Radiother Oncol. 2017 May;123(2):182-188
pubmed: 28169042
J Thorac Oncol. 2012 Oct;7(10):1547-55
pubmed: 22982655
J Clin Oncol. 1995 Jan;13(1):8-10
pubmed: 7799047
Front Oncol. 2022 Mar 01;12:863502
pubmed: 35299750
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Jun 1;53(6):1199-1204
pubmed: 29293943
Lancet. 2019 May 18;393(10185):2051-2058
pubmed: 30982687
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Dec;17(12):1672-1682
pubmed: 27789196
HPB (Oxford). 2017 Feb;19(2):133-139
pubmed: 27916436
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 20;37(18):1558-1565
pubmed: 31067138
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Dec;14(12):2109-2119
pubmed: 31398540