Patient-reported symptoms before adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy for breast cancer: triple-negative histology impacts the symptom burden.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal breast cancer treatment may cause side effects reflected in patient-reported outcomes and/or symptom scores at the time of treatment planning for adjuvant radiotherapy. In our department, all patients have been assessed with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS; a questionnaire addressing 11 major symptoms and wellbeing on a numeric scale of 0-10) at the time of treatment planning since 2016. In this study, we analyzed ESAS symptom severity before locoregional radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 132 patients treated between 2016 and 2021 (all comers in breast-conserving or post-mastectomy settings, different radiotherapy fractionations) was performed. All ESAS items and the ESAS point sum were analyzed to identify subgroups with higher symptom burden and thus need for additional care measures. RESULTS: The biggest patient-reported issues were fatigue, pain, and sleep problems. Patients with triple negative breast cancer reported a higher symptom burden (mean 30 versus 20, p = 0.038). Patients assigned to adjuvant endocrine therapy had the lowest point sum (mean 18), followed by those on Her-2-targeting agents without chemotherapy (mean 19), those on chemotherapy with or without other drugs (mean 26), and those without systemic therapy (mean 41), p = 0.007. Those with pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment had significantly lower anxiety scores (mean 0.7 versus 1.8, p = 0.03) and a trend towards lower depression scores, p = 0.09. CONCLUSION: Different surgical strategies, age, and body mass index did not impact on ESAS scores, while the type of adjuvant systemic therapy did. The effect of previous neoadjuvant treatment and unfavorable tumor biology (triple negative) emerged as important factors associated with symptom burden, albeit in different domains. ESAS data may facilitate identification of patients who should be considered for additional supportive measures to alleviate specific symptoms.

Sex Differences in Presentation, Treatment, and Survival in Patients Receiving Palliative (Chemo)Radiotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze sex differences in a real-world cohort of patients who received palliative thoracic radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, baseline, treatment, toxicity, and survival data from a single institution were analyzed. The study included 181 patients (82 females, 99 males). RESULTS: Despite borderline significant differences in disease presentation (T and N stage), final assignment to stage II, III or IV was similar. The same was true for target volume size. Neither radiotherapy parameters nor systemic treatment approaches were significantly different. Toxicity profiles and survival were similar too. Less than 1 out of 3 patients experienced high-grade toxicity, largely esophagitis. Median survival was 8.1 (males) versus 7.8 months (females) and the corresponding 2-year survival rates were 16 and 15%, respectively (p=0.78). CONCLUSION: Relevant sex differences were not observed in this study of common radiotherapy regimes such as 10 fractions of 3 Gy or 15 fractions of 2.8 Gy, the latter often combined with carboplatin/vinorelbine chemotherapy.

Re-irradiation in clinical practice: Results of an international patterns of care survey within the framework of the ESTRO-EORTC E2-RADIatE platform.

BACKGROUND: Re-irradiation is an increasingly utilized treatment for recurrent, metastatic or new malignancies after previous radiotherapy. It is unclear how re-irradiation is applied in clinical practice. We aimed to investigate the patterns of care of re-irradiation internationally. MATERIAL/METHODS: A cross-sectional survey conducted between March and September 2022. The survey was structured into six sections, each corresponding to a specific anatomical region. Participants were instructed to complete the sections of their clinical expertise. A total of 15 multiple-choice questions were included in each section, addressing various aspects of the re-irradiation process. The online survey targeted radiation and clinical oncologists and was endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). RESULTS: 371 physicians from 55 countries across six continents participated. Participants had a median professional experience of 16 years, and the majority (60%) were affiliated with an academic hospital. The brain region was the most common site for re-irradiation (77%), followed by the pelvis (65%) and head and neck (63%). Prolonging local control was the most common goal (90-96% across anatomical regions). The most common minimum interval between previous radiotherapy and re-irradiation was 6-12 months (45-55%). Persistent grade 3 or greater radiation-induced toxicity (77-80%) was the leading contraindication. Variability in organs at risk dose constraints for re-irradiation was observed. Advanced imaging modalities and conformal radiotherapy techniques were predominantly used. A scarcity of institutional guidelines for re-irradiation was reported (16-19%). Participants from European centers more frequently applied thoracic and abdominal re-irradiation. Indications did not differ between academic and non-academic hospitals. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the heterogeneity in re-irradiation practices across anatomical regions and emphasizes the need for high-quality evidence from prospective studies to guide treatment decisions and derive safe cumulative dose constraints.

How we treat octogenarians with brain metastases.

Biologically younger, fully independent octogenarians are able to tolerate most oncological treatments. Increasing frailty results in decreasing eligibility for certain treatments, e.g., chemotherapy and surgery. Most brain metastases are not an isolated problem, but part of widespread cancer dissemination, often in combination with compromised performance status. Multidisciplinary assessment is key in this vulnerable patient population where age, frailty, comorbidity and even moderate additional deficits from brain metastases or their treatment may result in immobilization, hospitalization, need for nursing home care, termination of systemic anticancer treatment etc. Here, we provide examples of successful treatment (surgery, radiosurgery, systemic therapy) and best supportive care, and comment on the limitations of prognostic scores, which often were developed in all-comers rather than octogenarians. Despite selection bias in retrospective studies, survival after radiosurgery was more encouraging than after whole-brain radiotherapy. Prospective research with focus on octogenarians is warranted to optimize outcomes.

Prospective randomized clinical studies involving reirradiation: update of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Reirradiation is a potentially useful option for many patients with recurrent cancer, aiming at cure or symptom palliation, depending on disease/recurrence type and stage. The purpose of this follow-up study to a previous review from 2016 was to summarize all recently published randomized trials. Points of interest again included identifcation of methodological strengths and weaknesses, practice-changing results, and open questions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic review of trials published between 2015 and February 2023. RESULTS: We reviewed 7 additional trials, most of which addressed reirradiation of head and neck or brain tumours. The median number of patients was 60. Mirroring the previous review, trial design, primary endpoints and statistical hypotheses varied widely. The updated results only impact on decision making for reirradiation of nasopharynx cancer and glioma. Patients with one of these diseases, as well as other head and neck cancers, may benefit from reirradiation-induced local control, e.g. in terms of progression-free survival. For the first time, hyperfractionated radiotherapy emerged as preferred option for recurrent, inoperable nasopharynx cancer. Despite better therapeutic ratio with hyperfractionation, serious toxicity remains a concern after high cumulative total doses. Randomized trials are still lacking for prostate cancer and other sites. CONCLUSION: Multicentric randomized trials on reirradiation are feasible and continue to refine the current standard of care for recurrent disease after previous radiotherapy. Ongoing prospective studies such as the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (ESTRO-EORTC) observational cohort ReCare (NCT: NCT03818503) will further shape the clinical practice of reirradiation.

Days at home in the last three months of life: patterns-of-care analysis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Introduction: To calculate the number of days patients with terminal non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) spent at home in the last 3 months of life, and to identify factors that predict a lower proportion of days at home. Material and methods: Retrospective study of 434 deceased patients with NSCLC. The number of days spent in a hospital or nursing home was identified from electronic health records. Results: Most patients received primary chemotherapy. Only 45% received palliative care provided by a dedicated palliative care team (PCT). In the last 3 months of life, only 39 patients (9%) were not hospitalized. The median number of days spent in hospital was 17, range 0-61. Hospital death occurred in 48%. Admission to a nursing home was recorded in 45%. Overall, the patients spent a median of 64 days at home. Both, older patients and females spent fewer days at home. Family network and aspects of palliative care, possibly reflecting the symptom duration or burden, also impacted days at home. Conclusions: Long-lasting need for PCT support (not just the final 3 months) and earlier necessity for opioid analgesics were predictive for a reduced number of days at home. However, modifiable factors such as sex were identified too.

PRO: Do We Still Need Whole-Brain Irradiation for Brain Metastases?

(1) Background: In recent decades, the use of whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in the treatment of brain metastases has significantly decreased, with clinicians fearing adverse neurocognitive events and data showing limited efficacy regarding local tumor control and overall survival. The present study thus aimed to reassess the role that WBRT holds in the treatment of brain metastases. (2) Methods: This review summarizes the available evidence from 1990 until today supporting the use of WBRT, as well as new developments in WBRT and their clinical implications. (3) Results: While one to four brain metastases should be exclusively treated with radiosurgery, WBRT does remain an option for patients with multiple metastases. In particular, hippocampus-avoidance WBRT, WBRT with dose escalation to the metastases, and their combination have shown promising results and offer valid alternatives to local stereotactic radiotherapy. Ongoing and published prospective trials on the efficacy and toxicity of these new methods are presented. (4) Conclusions: Unlike conventional WBRT, which has limited indications, modern WBRT techniques continue to have a significant role to play in the treatment of multiple brain metastases. In which situations radiosurgery or WBRT should be the first option should be investigated in further studies. Until then, the therapeutic decision must be made individually depending on the oncological context.

Independent Validation of a Unifying Prognostic Model for Intracranial and Extracranial Metastasis-directed Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze the validity of a unifying prognostic model, originally developed by Kowalchuk et al., because relevant variations in clinical practice and observed survival may impact on the performance of predictive tools. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, data from a single institution were analyzed. The study included 253 patients managed with radiotherapy for spine and/or brain metastases. The Kowalchuk et al. score [3 parameters including performance status, number of organ systems involved with disease outside of the organ system of the treatment target, and treatment of intracranial target(s)] was assigned and the resulting prognostic strata compared. RESULTS: The decision tool developed by Kowalchuk et al. performed well, e.g., in terms of 2-year survival. Complementary information could be obtained by analyses of blood test results such as hemoglobin, albumin, and C-reactive protein. CONCLUSION: The new unifying score emerged as a valid prognostic model in our external validation database.

Percent of remaining life on palliative radiation treatment: solely a function of fractionation?

Background: This study analyzed the percent of remaining life (PRL) on treatment in patients irradiated for bone metastases. Bone metastases were treated together with other target volumes, if indicated, e.g. a 10-fraction treatment course that included brain and bone metastases. PRL was determined by calculating the time between start and finish of palliative radiotherapy (minimum 1 day in case of a single-fraction regimen) and dividing it by overall survival in days from start of radiotherapy. Materials and methods: Different baseline parameters were assessed for association with dichotomized PRL (< 5% vs. ≥ 5%). The retrospective study included 219 patients (287 courses of palliative radiotherapy). After univariate analyses, multi-nominal logistic regression was employed. Results: PRL on treatment ranged from 1-23%. Single-fraction radiotherapy resulted in < 5% PRL on treatment in all cases. All courses with 10 fractions resulted in at least 5% PRL on treatment. Significant associations were found between various baseline parameters and PRL category. With fractionation included in the regression model, 3 parameters retained significant p-values: Karnofsky performance status (KPS), none-bone target volume and fractionation (all with p < 0.001). If analyzed without fractionation, none-bone target volume (p < 0.001), hemoglobin (p < 0.001), KPS (p = 0.01), lack of additional systemic treatment (p = 0.01), and hypercalcemia (p = 0.04) were significant. Conclusions: Fractionation is an easily modifiable factor with high impact on PRL. Patients with KPS < 70 and those treated for additional target types during the same course are at high risk of spending a larger proportion of their remaining life on treatment.

Personalized radiotherapy of brain metastases: survival prediction by means of dichotomized or differentiated blood test results?

Background and objectives: The validated LabBM score (laboratory parameters in patients with brain metastases) represents a widely applicable survival prediction model, which incorporates 5 blood test results (serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin, platelets and hemoglobin). All tests are classified as normal or abnormal, without accounting for the wide range of abnormality observed in practice. We tested the hypothesis that improved stratification might be possible, if more granular test results are employed. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 198 patients managed with primary whole-brain radiotherapy in one of the institutions who validated the original LabBM score. Results: For two blood tests (albumin, CRP), discrimination was best for the original dichotomized version (normal/abnormal). For two others (LDH, hemoglobin), a three-tiered classification was best. The number of patients with low platelet count was not large enough for detailed analyses. A modified LabBM score was developed, which separates the intermediate of originally 3 prognostic groups into 2 statistically significantly different strata, resulting in a 4-tiered score. Conclusion: This initial proof-of-principle study suggests that granular blood test results might contribute to further improvement of the score, or alternatively development of a nomogram, if additional large-scale studies confirm the encouraging results of the present analysis.

Early death after palliative radiation treatment: 30-, 35- and 40-day mortality data and statistically robust predictors.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed mortality after radiotherapy for bone metastases (287 courses). Endpoints such as treatment in the last month of life and death within 30, 35 and 40 days from start of radiotherapy were evaluated. METHODS: Different baseline parameters including but not limited to blood test results and patterns of metastases were assessed for association with early death. After univariate analyses, multi-nominal logistic regression was employed. RESULTS: Of 287 treatment courses, 42 (15%) took place in the last month of life. Mortality from start of radiotherapy was 13% (30-day), 15% (35-day) and 18% (40-day), respectively. We identified three significant predictors of 30-day mortality (performance status (≤ 50, 60-70, 80-100), weight loss of at least 10% within 6 months (yes/no), pleural effusion (present/absent)) and employed these to construct a predictive model with 5 strata and mortality rates of 0-75%. All predictors of 30-day mortality were also associated with both, 35- and 40-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Early death was not limited to the first 30 days after start of radiotherapy. For different cut-off points, similar predictive factors emerged. A model based on three robust predictors was developed.

Brain Metastases: Is There Still a Role for Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy?

Whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has commonly been prescribed to palliate symptoms from brain metastases, to reduce the risk of local relapse after surgical resection, and to improve distant brain control after resection or radiosurgery. While targeting micrometastases throughout the brain can be considered advantageous, the simultaneous exposure of healthy brain tissue might cause adverse events. Attempts to mitigate the risk of neurocognitive decline after WBRT include the selective avoidance of the hippocampi, among others. Besides selective dose reduction, dose escalation to boost volumes, for example, simultaneous integrated boost, aiming at increased tumor control probability is technically feasible. While up-front radiotherapy for newly diagnosed brain metastases often employs radiosurgery or other techniques targeting visible lesions only, sequential (delayed) salvage treatment with WBRT might still become necessary. In addition, the presence of leptomeningeal tumors or very widespread parenchymatous brain metastases might prompt clinicians to prescribe early WBRT.

Palliative Radiotherapy for Non-metastatic Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: Impact of Blood Test Results on Survival.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not amenable to curative treatment can be managed with palliative thoracic radiation or chemoradiation, however, with variable success. This study evaluated the prognostic impact of the LabBM score [serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein, albumin, hemoglobin, platelets] in 56 patients who were scheduled to receive at least 10 fractions of 3 Gy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Uni- and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for overall survival were employed in a retrospective single-institution study of stage II and III NSCLC. RESULTS: The first multivariate analysis showed that hospitalization in the month before radiotherapy (p<0.001), concomitant chemoradiotherapy (p=0.03), and LabBM point sum (p=0.09) were the leading predictors of survival. A second model with individual blood tests rather than the sum score suggested that concomitant chemoradiotherapy (p=0.002), hemoglobin (p=0.01), LDH (p=0.04), and hospitalization before radiotherapy (p=0.08) played important roles. Surprisingly long survival was seen in patients without prior hospitalization who received concomitant chemoradiotherapy and had favorable LabBM score (0-1 points): median 24 months, 5-year rate 46%. CONCLUSION: Blood biomarkers provide relevant prognostic information. The LabBM score has 1) previously been validated in patients with brain metastases and 2) demonstrated encouraging results in a cohort irradiated for different palliative non-brain indications, e.g., bone metastases. It might be helpful in predicting survival in patients with non-metastatic cancer, e.g., NSCLC stage II and III.

The LabPS score: Inexpensive, Fast, and Site-agnostic Survival Prediction.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a widely applicable, blood-biomarker-based and performance-status-based prognostic model, which predicts the survival of patients undergoing palliative non-brain radiotherapy. This model has already been examined in a cohort of patients treated for brain metastases and performed well. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-institution analysis of 375 patients, managed with non-ablative radiotherapy to extracranial targets, such as bone, lung, or lymph nodes. Survival was stratified by LabPS score, a model including serum hemoglobin, platelets, albumin, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, and performance status. Zero, 0.5, or 1 point was assigned and the final point sum calculated. A higher point sum indicates shorter survival. RESULTS: The LabPS score predicted overall survival very well (median 0.6 to 26.5 mo, 3-month rate 0% to 100%, 1-year rate 0% to 89%), P =0.0001. However, the group with the poorest prognosis (4.5 points) was very small. Most patients with comparably short survival or radiotherapy administered in the last month of life had a lower point sum. Additional prognostic factors, such as liver metastases, opioid analgesic use, and/or corticosteroid medication, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: If busy clinicians prefer a general prognostic model rather than a panel of separate diagnosis-specific/target-specific scores, they may consider validating the LabPS score in their own practice. In resource-constrained settings, inexpensive standard blood tests may be preferable over imaging-derived prognostic information. Just like other available scores, the LabPS cannot identify all patients with very short survival.

Patterns of Care and Survival in Cancer Patients with Brain Metastases Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a mainstay of treatment for different cancer types. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patterns of care and overall survival (OS) after diagnosis of brain metastases in patients managed with ICI as component of care. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Fifty patients were included (34 with brain metastases at first cancer diagnosis, 16 with metachronous spread). RESULTS: Depending on symptoms, lesion number and size, and other individualized criteria, multidisciplinary tumor (MDT) board discussion resulted in highly individualized treatment sequences. Selected patients received systemic treatment alone. Twenty-four patients (48%) had any stereotactic radiosurgery or neurosurgical resection at some point in time (upfront/salvage). Only 7 patients (14%) were never treated with brain irradiation or neurosurgery. Median OS was 13.0 months. Better Karnofsky performance status, absence of extracranial metastases, and time interval between cancer diagnosis and brain metastases of 0-18 months predicted for improved survival. Treatment sequence was not associated with survival. Patients without extracranial metastases had median OS of 52.2 months. CONCLUSION: Long-term survival is possible in patients managed with ICI ± brain-directed treatment. This study did not identify a clear treatment sequence of choice. MDT assessment at diagnosis and each progression is recommended to ensure favorable outcomes.

Independent Validation of a Risk Stratification Model Predicting Survival in Elderly Patients Irradiated for Bone Metastases.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Many patients with bone metastases receive palliative radiotherapy. However, treatment personalization tools are needed, due to heterogeneous survival. The aim of this study was to analyze the validity of the prognostic survival model, originally developed by Rades et al., because international variations in clinical practice and survival outcomes may impact on the performance of predictive tools. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from a single institution were retrospectively analyzed. The study included 305 patients managed with palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases. The Rades et al. score was assigned and the resulting 3 prognostic strata were compared. RESULTS: The median overall survival for the 3 strata was 48, 248, and 1065 days, respectively (p<0.001). However, the original break-down (17 points versus 18-25 points versus >25 points) was not in accordance with the overlapping survival curves in some of the subgroups, leading us to propose slight adjustments. The modified model also performed satisfactorily in older patients (age ≥80 years; median survival 26, 192 and 489 days, respectively, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The original Rades et al. survival score was a valid prognostic model in our Norwegian validation database. However, inclusion of patients with 18 points into the poor prognosis group is suggested as a modification to enhance the score's performance.

Prognostic Factors and Independent Validation of a Risk Stratification Model in Octogenarian Patients Irradiated for Brain Metastases.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed at validation of a prognostic model, originally developed by Rades et al., in an age-restricted, particularly vulnerable subgroup of patients with brain metastases, because international variations in clinical practice and survival outcomes may impact on the performance of survival prediction tools. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, data from a single institution were analyzed. The study included 50 patients managed with palliative whole-brain radiotherapy. The Rades et al. score was assigned and the resulting 3 prognostic strata compared. RESULTS: The 3-month survival rates for the 3 strata were 0, 35, and 41%, respectively (p<0.001 pooled over all strata, log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier curves). However, the prognostic impact of extracranial metastases suggested by Rades et al., together with the performance status and number of brain metastases in their study of 94 patients, was absent. In contrast, cancer type (better survival for breast and melanoma) and lack of steroid treatment were significant in the present study. CONCLUSION: The original Rades et al. score is a useful prognostic model in our validation database. However, additional factors, such as primary cancer type and need to prescribe corticosteroids, appear to play a role and might therefore be considered when performing future large-scale studies.

Palliative appropriateness criteria: external validation of a new method to evaluate the suitability of palliative radiotherapy fractionation.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the palliative appropriateness criteria (PAC) score, a novel metric to aid clinical decision-making between different palliative radiotherapy fractionation regimens, has been developed. It includes baseline parameters including but not limited to performance status. The researchers behind the PAC score analyzed the percent of remaining life (PRL) on treatment. The latter was accomplished by calculating the time between start and finish of palliative radiotherapy (minimum 1 day in case of a single-fraction regimen) and dividing it by overall survival in days from start of radiotherapy. The purpose of the present study was to validate this novel metric. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The retrospective validation study included 219 patients (287 courses of palliative radiotherapy). The methods were identical to those employed in the score development study. The score was calculated by assigning 1 point each to several factors identified in the original study and using the online calculator provided by the PAC developers. RESULTS: Median survival was 6 months and death within 30 days from start of radiotherapy was recorded in 13% of courses. PRL on treatment ranged from 1 to 23%, median 8%. Significant associations were confirmed between online-calculated PAC score, observed survival, and risk of death within 30 days from the start of radiotherapy. Patients with score 0 had distinctly better survival than all other groups. The score-predicted median risk of death within 30 days from start of radiotherapy was 22% in our cohort. A statistically significant correlation was found between predicted and observed risk (p < 0.001). The original and present study were not perfectly concordant regarding number and type of baseline parameters that should be included when calculating the PAC score. CONCLUSION: This study supports the dual strategy of PRL and risk of early death calculation, with results stratified for fractionation regimen, in line with the original PAC score study. When considering multifraction regimens, the PAC score identifies patients who may benefit from shorter courses. Additional work is needed to answer open questions surrounding the underlying components of the score, because the original and validation study were only partially aligned.

Considerations regarding carotid artery dose in radiotherapy of the cervical spine.

Radiation to the carotid arteries, e.g. in the context of head and neck cancer treatment, is one of several risk factors for artery stenosis. In principle, this fact may also have implications for stereotactic cervical spine radiotherapy, because long-term survival can be achieved in patients with oligometastatic disease and favorable prognostic features. Here, we suggest that radiation dose distributions with reduced dose to the carotid artery are achievable when planning stereotactic cervical spine radiotherapy. Patients with high likelihood of long-term survival may benefit from such vessel-sparing approaches.

Personalized treatment of brain metastases: Evolving survival prediction models may benefit from evaluation of serum tumor markers (narrative review).

Treatment of a limited number of brain metastases (oligometastases) might include complex and sometimes invasive approaches, e.g. neurosurgical resection followed by post-operative stereotactic radiotherapy, and thus, correct identification of patients who are appropriate candidates is crucial. Both, staging procedures that visualize the true number of metastastic lesions and prognostic assessments that identify patients with limited survival, who should be managed with less complex, palliative approaches, are necessary before proceeding with local treatment that aims at eradication of all oligometastases. Some of the prognostic models, e.g. the LabBM score (laboratory parameters in patients with brain metastases), include blood biomarkers believed to represent surrogate markers of disease extent. In a recent study, patients with oligometastases and a LabBM score of 0 (no abnormal biomarkers) had an actuarial 5-year survival rate of 27% after neurosurgical resection and 39% after stereotactic radiotherapy. Other studies have tied serum tumor markers such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) to survival outcomes. Even if head-to-head comparisons and large-scale definitive analyses are lacking, the available data suggest that attempts to integrate tumor marker levels in blood biomarker-based survival prediction models are warranted.