Radiation Oncologists’ Perspectives on Oligometastatic Disease: A Korean Survey Study
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose Perspectives of radiation oncologists on oligometastatic disease was investigated using multi-layered survey. Materials and Methods Online survey on the oligometastatic disease was distributed to the board-certified regular members of the Korean Society for Radiation Oncology. The questionnaire consisted of four domains: five questions on demographics; five on the definition of oligometastatic disease; four on the role of local therapy; and three on the oligometastatic disease classification, respectively. Results A total of 135 radiation oncologists participated in the survey. The median length of practice after board certification was 22.5 years (range, 1 to 44 years), and the vast majority (94.1%) answered affirmatively to the clinical experience in oligometastatic disease management. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents considered the number of involved organs as an independent factor in defining oligometastasis. Most frequently perceived upper limit on the numerical definition of oligometastasis was 5 (64.2%), followed by 3 (26.0%), respectively. Peritoneal and brain metastasis were nominated as the sites to be excluded from oligometastastic disease by 56.3% and 12.6% of the participants, respectively. Vast majority (82.1%) agreed on the role of local treatment in the management of oligometastatic disease. Majority (72%) of the participants acknowledged the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)–European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) classification of oligometastatic disease, however, only 43.3% answered that they applied this classification in their clinical practice. Underlying reasons against the clinical use were ‘too complicated’ (66.0%), followed by ‘insufficient supporting evidence’ (30.0%), respectively. Conclusion While most radiation oncologists supported the role of local therapy in oligometastatic disease, there were several inconsistencies in defining and categorizing oligometastatic disease. Continued education and training on oligometastatic disease would be also required to build consensus among participating caregivers.
Abstract
Purpose Perspectives of radiation oncologists on oligometastatic disease was investigated using multi-layered survey. Materials and Methods Online survey on the oligometastatic disease was distributed to the board-certified regular members of the Korean Society for Radiation Oncology. The questionnaire consisted of four domains: five questions on demographics; five on the definition of oligometastatic disease; four on the role of local therapy; and three on the oligometastatic disease classification, respectively. Results A total of 135 radiation oncologists participated in the survey. The median length of practice after board certification was 22.5 years (range, 1 to 44 years), and the vast majority (94.1%) answered affirmatively to the clinical experience in oligometastatic disease management. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents considered the number of involved organs as an independent factor in defining oligometastasis. Most frequently perceived upper limit on the numerical definition of oligometastasis was 5 (64.2%), followed by 3 (26.0%), respectively. Peritoneal and brain metastasis were nominated as the sites to be excluded from oligometastastic disease by 56.3% and 12.6% of the participants, respectively. Vast majority (82.1%) agreed on the role of local treatment in the management of oligometastatic disease. Majority (72%) of the participants acknowledged the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)–European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) classification of oligometastatic disease, however, only 43.3% answered that they applied this classification in their clinical practice. Underlying reasons against the clinical use were ‘too complicated’ (66.0%), followed by ‘insufficient supporting evidence’ (30.0%), respectively. Conclusion While most radiation oncologists supported the role of local therapy in oligometastatic disease, there were several inconsistencies in defining and categorizing oligometastatic disease. Continued education and training on oligometastatic disease would be also required to build consensus among participating caregivers.
참고문헌 (20)
- Welch DR, "Defining the hallmarks of metastasis", Cancer Res, 79, pp.3011~3027 (2019)
- Klein CA, "Framework models of tumor dormancy from patient-derived observations", Curr Opin Genet Dev, 21, pp.42~49 (2011)
- Hellman S, "Oligometastases", J Clin Oncol, 13, pp.8~10 (1995)
- Hughes KS, "Resection of the liver for colorectal carcinoma metastases : a multi-institutional study of longterm survivors", Dis Colon Rectum, 31, pp.1~4 (1988)
- Nordlinger B, "Surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma metastases to the liver : a prognostic scoring system to improve case selection, based on 1568 patients. Association Francaise de Chirurgie", Cancer, 77, pp.1254~1262 (1996)
- Pastorino U, "Long-term results of lung metastasectomy : prognostic analyses based on 5206 cases", J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 113, pp.37~49 (1997)
- Weichselbaum RR, "Oligometastases revisited", Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 8, pp.378~382 (2011)
- Guckenberger M, "Characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease : a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus recommendation", Lancet Oncol, 21, pp.e18~e28 (2020)
- Lee DH, "Treating oligometastses, prelude or just hassles of systemic treatment", Cancer Res Treat, 54, pp.951~952 (2022)
- Rim CH, "Role of local treatment for oligometastasis : a comparabilitybased meta-analysis", Cancer Res Treat, 54, pp.953~969 (2022)
- Lievens Y, "Defining oligometastatic disease from a radiation oncology perspective : an ESTRO-ASTRO consensus document", Radiother Oncol, 148, pp.157~166 (2020)
- Palma DA, "Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of oligometastatic cancers : long-term results of the SABR-COMET phase II randomized trial", J Clin Oncol, 38, pp.2830~2838 (2020)
- Gomez DR, "Local consolidative therapy vs. maintenance therapy or observation for patients with oligometastatic nonsmall-cell lung cancer : long-term results of a multi-institutional, phase II, randomized study", J Clin Oncol, 37, pp.1558~1565 (2019)
- Tsai CJ, "Consolidative use of radiotherapy to block(CURB)oligoprogression : interim analysis of the first randomized study of stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with oligoprogressive mtastatic cancers of the lung and breast", Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 111, pp.1325~1326 (2021)
- Palma DA, "The oligometastatic state : separating truth from wishful thinking", Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 11, pp.549~557 (2014)
- Correa RJ, "Stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastasis : opportunities for biology to guide clinical management", Cancer J, 22, pp.247~256 (2016)
- Ost P, "Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence : a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II trial", J Clin Oncol, 36, pp.446~453 (2018)
- Iyengar P, "Consolidative radiotherapy for limited metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer : a phase 2 randomized clinical trial", JAMA Oncol, 4, pp.e173501~ (2018)
- Phillips R, "Outcomes of observation vs stereotactic ablative radiation for oligometastatic prostate cancer : the ORIOLE phase 2 randomized clinical trial", JAMA Oncol, 6, pp.650~659 (2020)
- Nevens D, "Completeness of reporting oligometastatic disease characteristics in the literature and influence on oligometastatic disease classification using the ESTRO", EORTC nomenclature, 2022, pp.114, 587~595