ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: In this review, the concept of (synchronous) oligometastatic disease in patients with non-oncogene-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) will be placed in the context of tumor biology and metastatic growth patterns. We will also provide considerations for clinical practice and future perspectives, which will ultimately lead to better patient selection and oligometastatic disease outcome. BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape of metastasized NSCLC has moved from "one-size fits all" to a personalized approach. Prognosis has traditionally been poor but new treatment options, such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, brighten future perspectives. Another emerging development is the recognition of patients with so-called "oligometastatic" state of disease. Oligometastatic disease has been recognized as a distinct clinical presentation in which the tumor is stated to be early in its evolution of metastatic potential. It is suggested that this stage of disease has an indolent course, comes with a better prognosis and therefore could be considered for radical multimodality treatment. METHODS: Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts. CONCLUSIONS: Oligometastatic NSCLC is a broad spectrum disease, with a variable prognosis. Although the biology and behavior of "intermediate state" of metastatic disease are not fully understood, there is evidence that a subgroup of patients can benefit from local radical treatment when integrated into a multimodality regime. The consensus definition of oligometastatic NSCLC, including accurate staging, may help to uniform future trials. The preferable treatment strategy seems to sequential systemic treatment with subsequent local radical treatment in patients with a partial response or stable disease. Prognostic factors such as N-stage, number and site of distant metastases, tumor volume, performance status, age, and tumor type should be considered. The local radical treatment strategy has to be discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting, taking into account patient characteristics and invasiveness of the procedure. However, many aspects remain to be explored and learned about the cancer biology and characteristics of intermediate state tumors.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many total hip implants are currently available on the market worldwide. We aimed to estimate the probability of revision surgery at ten years for each individual total hip implant and to compare these estimates with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) benchmark. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of cohort studies. The methodological quality was assessed with use of the Assessment of Quality in Lower Limb Arthroplasty (AQUILA) checklist. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Additionally, national joint registries that were full members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registers (ISAR) were hand searched. Studies in which the authors reported the survival probability for either the acetabular or the femoral component of primary total hip replacements with use of revision for any reason or for aseptic loosening at ten years as the end point, with at least 100 implants at baseline, and in which at least 60% of the patients had primary osteoarthritis were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: The search strategy revealed 5513 papers describing survival probabilities for thirty-four types of acetabular components and thirty-two types of femoral components. Eight types of acetabular cups and fifteen types of femoral stems performed better than the NICE benchmark. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that surgeons performing a primary total hip replacement use an implant that outperforms the NICE benchmarks.