Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Defining oligometastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and critical synthesis of consensus.
Leonhardt, C-S; Stamm, T; Hank, T; Prager, G; Strobel, O.
Afiliação
  • Leonhardt CS; Department of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna.
  • Stamm T; Institute of Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna; Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Arthritis and Rehabilitation, Vienna.
  • Hank T; Department of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna.
  • Prager G; Department of Medicine I, Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
  • Strobel O; Department of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna. Electronic address: oliver.strobel@meduniwien.ac.at.
ESMO Open ; 8(6): 102067, 2023 Dec.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37988953
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Small retrospective series suggest that local consolidative treatment (LCT) may improve survival in oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, no uniform definition of oligometastatic disease (OMD) in PDAC exists; this impedes meaningful conclusions. PATIENTS AND

METHODS:

A systematic literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL registries for studies and protocols reporting on definitions and/or LCT of OMD in PDAC was performed. The primary endpoint was the definition of OMD. Levels of agreement were categorized as consensus (≥75% agreement between studies), fair agreement (50%-74%), and absent/poor agreement (<50%).

RESULTS:

After screening of 5374 abstracts, the full text of 218 studies was assessed, of which 76 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The majority of studies were retrospective (n = 66, 87%), two were prospective studies and eight were study protocols. Studies investigated mostly liver (n = 38, 51%) and lung metastases (n = 15, 20%). Across studies, less than one-half (n = 32, 42%) reported a definition of OMD, while 44 (58%) did not. Involvement was limited to a single organ (consensus). Additional criteria for defining OMD were the number of lesions (consensus), metastatic site (poor agreement), metastatic size (poor agreement), treatment possibilities (poor agreement), and biomarker response (poor agreement). Liver OMD could involve three or fewer lesions (consensus) and synchronous disease (fair agreement), while lung metastases could involve two or fewer lesions and metachronous disease (consensus). The large majority of studies were at a high risk of bias or did not include any control groups.

CONCLUSION:

Definitions of OMD were not used or varied widely between studies hampering across-study comparability and highlighting an unmet need for a consensus. The present study is part of a multistep process that aims to develop an interdisciplinary consensus on OMD in pancreatic cancer.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Pancreáticas / Neoplasias Pulmonares Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: ESMO Open Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Pancreáticas / Neoplasias Pulmonares Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: ESMO Open Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article