Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42558969›Full record

ArticleExploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy2026

Consensus statements on the definition, diagnosis, and management of oligoprogressive disease: results of an expert survey of Kazakhstan Cancer Society.

Dilyara Kaidarova, Indira Omarova, Samat Kaldarbekov, Nazgul Omarbayeva, Maia Dzhugashvili, Elena Ulrikh, Dina Alisheva, Bakhadyr Bereketov, Ilya Tsimafeyeu, Timur Mitin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Dilyara KaidarovaAsfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, Almaty 050012, Republic of Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0969-5983
Indira OmarovaKaraganda Medical University, Karaganda 100012, Republic of Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8312-0558
Samat KaldarbekovAsfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, Almaty 050012, Republic of Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4950-9794
Nazgul OmarbayevaBreast Cancer Department, Kazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology, Almaty 050022, Republic of Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5500-1495
Maia DzhugashviliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, Madrid 28010, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7594-2639
Elena UlrikhN.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Saint Petersburg 197758, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2701-8812
Dina AlishevaAlmaty Oncology Center, Almaty 050054, Republic of Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0804-7536
Bakhadyr BereketovDepartment of Urological Oncology, Kazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology, Almaty 050022, Republic of Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2297-9805
Ilya TsimafeyeuBureau for Cancer Research, New York, NY 10032, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7357-0392
Timur MitinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7923-574X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: Oligoprogressive disease (OPD) has emerged as a clinically relevant and common scenario in oncology, reflecting progression in a limited number of metastatic sites while systemic therapy continues to control the majority of disease. Despite its increasing recognition, the definition, diagnostic approach, and management of OPD remain poorly standardized. Methods: A multidisciplinary expert panel from Kazakhstan and international faculty, including ten medical oncologists, radiation, and surgical oncologists, participated in a structured survey. The questionnaire consisted of 15 items divided into three domains: definition of OPD, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment strategies. Responses were analyzed, and consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement, relative agreement as 50-69%, and lack of consensus as < 50%. Results: Consensus was reached that OPD is defined as progression in a limited number of lesions while other sites remain controlled, regardless of lesion size or localization. No consensus was achieved regarding the maximum number of progressive lesions, with experts divided between "≤ 5 lesions" and "any number amenable to local therapy." Imaging with CT or PET-CT was considered sufficient. Biopsy and molecular testing were recommended only in selected contexts. Systemic therapy continuation during OPD was endorsed if effective, with strong support for local therapy, particularly stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SBRT/SABR). Divergence remained regarding the management of repeat OPD. Conclusions: This Kazakhstan Cancer Society consensus defines the fundamental clinical features of OPD and provides practical recommendations for diagnosis and treatment. Comparison with international guidelines reveals broad alignment on systemic continuation and local therapy, as well as persistent variation regarding lesion number, biopsy, and repeat OPD management.

Indexed as

consensusKazakhstan Cancer Societymanagementoligoprogressive disease

Identifiers

PMID42558969
PMCPMC13439110

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.