ArticleCancer research and treatment2023
Differential Perspectives by Specialty on Oligometastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Korean Oligometastasis Working Group's Comparative Survey Study.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Capecitabine maintenance after radiofrequency ablation: A preventive strategy for lung oligometastases from colorectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Optimizing Treatment Strategy for Oligometastases/Oligo-Recurrence of Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2023Review
- Barriers in Oligometastasis Care in Korea: Radiation Oncologists' Perspectives.Cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite numerous studies on the optimal treatments for oligometastatic disease (OMD), there is no established interdisciplinary consensus on its diagnosis or classification. This survey-based study aimed to analyze the differential opinions of colorectal surgeons and radiation oncologists regarding the definition and treatment of OMD from the colorectal primary. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 141 participants were included in this study, consisting of 63 radiation oncologists (44.7%) and 78 colorectal surgeons (55.3%). The survey consisted of 19 questions related to OMD, and the responses were analyzed using the chi-square test to determine statistical differences between the specialties.
resultsThe radiation oncologists chose "bone" more frequently compared to the colorectal surgeons (19.2% vs. 36.5%, p=0.022), while colorectal surgeons favored "peritoneal seeding" (26.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.009). Regarding the number of metastatic tumors, 48.3% of colorectal surgeons responded that "irrelevant, if all metastatic lesions are amendable to local therapy", while only 21.8% of radiation oncologist chose same answer. When asked about molecular diagnosis, most surgeons (74.8%) said it was important, but only 35.8% of radiation oncologists agreed.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that although radiation oncologists and colorectal surgeons agreed on a majority of aspects such as diagnostic imaging, biomarker, systemic therapy, and optimal timing of OMD, they also had quite different perspectives on several aspects of OMD. Understanding these differences is crucial to achieving multidisciplinary consensus on the definition and optimal management of OMD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.