Definition of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer and impact of local oligometastasis-directed treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Local treatment (metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy) for oligometastatic disease (OMD) in patients with esophagogastric cancer may improve overall survival (OS). The primary aim was to identify definitions of esophagogastric OMD. A secondary aim was to perform a meta-analysis of OS after local treatment versus systemic therapy alone for OMD. METHODS Studies and study protocols reporting on definitions or OS after local treatment for esophagogastric OMD were included. The primary outcome was the maximum number of organs/lesions considered OMD and the maximum number of lesions per organ (i.e. 'organ-specific' OMD burden). Agreement was considered to be either absent/poor (< 50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (≥ 75%). The secondary outcome was the pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for OS after local treatment versus systemic therapy alone. The ROBINS tool was used for quality assessment. RESULTS A total of 97 studies, including 7 study protocols, and 2 prospective studies, were included. OMD was considered in 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases (consensus). 'Organ-specific' OMD burden could involve bilobar ≤ 3 liver metastases, unilateral ≤ 2 lung metastases, 1 extra-regional lymph node station, ≤ 2 brain metastases, or bilateral adrenal gland metastases (consensus). Local treatment for OMD was associated with improved OS compared with systemic therapy alone based on 6 non-randomized studies (pooled aHR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30-0.74) and for liver oligometastases based on 5 non-randomized studies (pooled aHR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.22-0.59). All studies scored serious risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS Current literature considers esophagogastric cancer spread limited to 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station to be OMD. Local treatment for OMD appeared associated with improved OS compared with systemic therapy alone. Prospective randomized trials are warranted

Incidence and survival of patients with oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer: A multicenter cohort study

urpose/objective: This multicenter study assessed the incidence and survival of patients with esophagogastric cancer and oligometastatic disease (OMD) in two tertiary referral cancer centers in The Netherlands and Switzerland. Materials/methods: Between 2010 and 2021, patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer were identified. Patients with de-novo OMD were included (first-time diagnosis of ≤5 distant metastases on 18F-FDG-PET/CT). Control of the primary tumor was considered in patients who underwent primary tumor resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy without locoregional recurrence. Treatment of OMD was categorized into (1) systemic therapy, (2) local treatment (stereotactic body radiotherapy or metastasectomy), (3) local plus systemic therapy, or (4) best supportive care. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and independent prognostic factors for OS. Independent prognostic factors for OS were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. Results: In total, 830 patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer were identified of whom 200 patients with de-novo OMD were included (24%). The majority of included patients had esophageal cancer (73%) with adenocarcinoma histology (79%) and metachronous OMD (52%). The primary tumor was controlled in 68%. Treatment of OMD was systemic therapy (25%), local treatment (43%), local plus systemic therapy (13%), or best supportive care (18%). Median follow-up was 14 months (interquartile range: 7-27). Median OS was 16 months (95% CI: 13-21). Improved OS was independently associated with local plus systemic therapy compared with systemic therapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.87). Worse OS was independently associated with squamous cell carcinoma (HR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.07-2.74), bone oligometastases (HR 2.44, 95% CI: 1.28-4.68), brain oligometastases (HR 1.98, 95% CI: 1.05-4.69), and two metastatic locations (HR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.04-4.12). Median OS after local plus systemic therapy was 35 months (95% CI: 22-NA) as compared with 13 months (95% CI: 9-21, p < 0.001) after systemic therapy alone for OMD. Conclusion: Patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer present in 25% with de-novo OMD. Local treatment of OMD plus systemic therapy was independently associated with long-term OS and independently improved OS when compared with systemic therapy alone. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these results. Keywords: Esophageal neoplasms; Gastric neoplasms; Lymphatic metastasis; Metastasectomy; Neoplasm metastasis; Radiosurgery

Potential of ChatGPT in facilitating research in radiation oncology?

PURPOSE To evaluate the potential of the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT in supporting young clinical scientists with scientific tasks in radio oncological research. MATERIALS AND METHODS Seven scientific tasks were to be completed in 3 hours by 8 radiation oncologists with different scientific experience working at a university hospital: creation of a scientific synopsis, creation of a research question and corresponding clinical trial hypotheses, writing of the first paragraph of a manuscript introduction, clinical trial sample size calculation, and clinical data analyses (multivariate analysis, boxplot and survival curve). No participant had prior experience with an AI chatbot. All participants were instructed in ChatGPT v3.5 and its use was provided for all tasks. Answers were scored independently by two blinded experts. The subjective value of ChatGPT was rated by each participant. Data were analyzed with regression-, t-test and Spearman correlation (p<0.05). RESULTS Participants completed tasks 1-3 with an average score of 50% and 4-7 with 56%. Scientific experience, number of original publications and of first/last authorships showed a positive correlation with overall scoring (p=0.01-0.04). Participants with little to moderate scientific experience scored ChatGPT to be more helpful in solving tasks 4-7 compared to more experienced participants (p=0.04), with simultaneously presenting lower scorings (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS ChatGPT did not compensate for differences in scientific experience of young clinical scientists, with less experienced researchers believing false AI-generated scientific results

Recognition of and treatment recommendations for oligometastatic disease in multidisciplinary tumor boards

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 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 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 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 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

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe

BACKGROUND Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials