ArticleCancers2025
Status of Pulmonary Metastasectomy After PuLMiCC Trial: A Survey Amongst Oncologists, Gynecologists, Urologists and Dermatologists on Medical Needs for Local Therapy.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of pulmonary metastasectomy has been increasingly questioned in the surgical community after the PulMiCC trial challenged its benefit in colorectal cancer. However, the view on pulmonary metastasectomy among people in non-surgical disciplines remains unclear. This study explored interdisciplinary attitudes toward pulmonary metastasectomy and identified the clinical expectations shaping its future role.
methodsAn anonymous online survey of active board-certified physicians in oncology, urology, gynecology and dermatology was conducted (December 2024-June 2025). Twenty items covered attitudes to local ablative therapy, referral criteria, preferred modalities and future relevance. Group comparisons used Pearson's χ
resultsOf 2884 contacted physicians, 165 participated (≈5.7%), and 106 completed the questionnaire. All 106 (100%) endorsed local ablative therapy as meaningful; 92/106 (86.8%) favored routine integration into multimodal care. Surgical metastasectomy was selected by 49/106 (46.2%), SBRT was selected by 27/106 (25.5%) and image-guided ablation was selected by 7/106 (6.6%); preference for surgery differed by specialty (χ
conclusionsLocal ablative therapy, particularly pulmonary metastasectomy, continues to be viewed as an integral and trusted element of metastatic disease management across specialties. Despite limited prospective evidence, clinicians maintain strong confidence in its clinical value and foresee its evolution toward biologically and patient-tailored indications. However, the interpretation of these findings is limited by a low response rate and potential selection bias toward European, academically affiliated respondents. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically capture perceptions of pulmonary metastasectomy among non-surgical oncology-related specialists.
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.