Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37988953›Full record

SynthesisESMO open2023

Defining oligometastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and critical synthesis of consensus.

C-S Leonhardt, T Stamm, T Hank, G Prager, O Strobel

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ESMO open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Oligometastatic disease in pancreatic cancer: is there a role for curative-intent surgery? A narrative review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Pancreatic cancer in 2025: Have we found a solution?World journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Practical management of oligometastatic gastric cancer.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C-S LeonhardtDepartment of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna.
T StammInstitute of Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna; Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Arthritis and Rehabilitation, Vienna.
T HankDepartment of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna.
G PragerDepartment of Medicine I, Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
O StrobelDepartment of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna. Electronic address: oliver.strobel@meduniwien.ac.at.
Medical University of Vienna · ATLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Cancer Research · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmall 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

methodsA 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%).

resultsAfter 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.

conclusionDefinitions 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.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsPancreatic NeoplasmsConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective Studiesconsensus definitionlocal consolidative treatmentoligometastasisoligometastatic diseasepancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID37988953
PMCPMC10774968
OpenAlexW4388839628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.