Completeness of Reporting Oligometastatic Disease Characteristics in the Literature and Influence on Oligometastatic Disease Classification Using the ESTRO/EORTC Nomenclature

Abstract

Purpose: There is increasing evidence for the integration of locally ablative therapy into multimodality treatment of oligometastatic disease (OMD). To support standardised data collection, analysis, and comparison, a consensus OMD classification based on fundamental disease and treatment characteristics has previously been established. This study investigated the completeness of reporting the proposed OMD characteristics in literature and evaluated whether the proposed OMD classification system can be applied to the historical data.

Methods and materials: A systematic literature review was performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, searching for prospective and retrospective studies, where stereotactic body radiation therapy was a treatment component of OMD. Reporting of the OMD characteristics as described in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology classification was analyzed, feasibility to retrospectively classify the proposed OMD states was investigated, and the effect of the categorization on overall survival (OS) was evaluated.

Results: Our study shows incomplete reporting of the proposed OMD characteristics. The most fully reported characteristic was type of involved organs (88/95 studies); history of cancer progression was the least reported (not mentioned in 50/95 studies). Retrospective OMD classification of existing literature was only possible for 7 of the 95 studies. With respect to categorization as de novo, repeat, or induced OMD, homogeneous patient cohorts were observed in 21 of the 95 studies, most frequently de novo OMD in 20 studies. Differences in OS at 2, 3, or 5 years were not statistically significant between the different states. OS was significantly influenced by primary tumor histology, with superior OS observed for prostate cancer and worst OS observed for non-small cell lung cancer.

Conclusions: The largely incomplete reporting of the proposed OMD characteristics hampers a retrospective classification of existing literature. To facilitate future comparison of individual studies, as well as validation of the OMD classification, comprehensive reporting of OMD characteristics using standardised terminology is recommended, as proposed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology classification system and following the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus.