Radiation Oncologists’ Perspectives on Oligometastatic Disease: A Korean Survey Study
- Author:
Chai Hong RIM
1
;
Won Kyung CHO
;
Jong Hoon LEE
;
Young Seok KIM
;
Yang-Gun SUH
;
Kyung Hwan KIM
;
Ah Ram CHANG
;
Eui Kyu CHIE
;
Yong Chan AHN
;
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Cancer Research and Treatment 2024;56(2):414-421
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:EN
-
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.
