Next Article in Journal
In Vitro and In Vivo Anticancer Activity of Basil (Ocimum spp.): Current Insights and Future Prospects
Next Article in Special Issue
Efficacy of Vinflunine for Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Cancer after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Pretreatment—A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of PSA Density and an MRI-Based Predictive Model to Improve the Selection of Candidates for Prostate Biopsy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Molecular Subtypes as a Basis for Stratified Use of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer—A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/cancers14102373
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Metastasis-Directed Radiation Therapy with Consolidative Intent for Oligometastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Nicola Longo
1,†,
Giuseppe Celentano
1,†,
Luigi Napolitano
1,*,
Roberto La Rocca
1,
Marco Capece
1,
Gianluigi Califano
1,
Claudia Collà Ruvolo
1,
Francesco Mangiapia
1,
Ferdinando Fusco
2,
Simone Morra
1,
Carmine Turco
1,
Francesco Di Bello
1,
Giovanni Maria Fusco
1,
Luigi Cirillo
1,
Crescenzo Cacciapuoti
1,
Lorenzo Spirito
2,
Armando Calogero
3,
Antonello Sica
4,
Caterina Sagnelli
5 and
Massimiliano Creta
1
1
Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy
2
Department of Woman, Child and General, Specialized Surgery, Urology Unit, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80131 Naples, Italy
3
Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Va Pansini, 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
4
Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80131 Naples, Italy
5
Department of Mental Health and Public Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Largo Madonna delle Grazie n. 1, 80138 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cancers 2022, 14(10), 2373; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14102373
Submission received: 2 April 2022 / Revised: 7 May 2022 / Accepted: 9 May 2022 / Published: 11 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systemic Treatment of Advanced Bladder Cancer – Status Update)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Patients with oligometastatic urothelial carcinoma represent a challenging subset of subjects to manage. Herein we summarized evidence about the role of metastasis-directed radiation therapy in this clinical setting. Available preliminary evidence supports the role of metastasis-directed radiation therapy as a safe and efficacious option as it has the potential to facilitate local disease control and overall survival. However, in the absence of data from high-quality trials, definitive recommendations cannot be provided, and patients should be counseled on an individual basis.

Abstract

The management of patients with oligometastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) represents an evolving field in uro-oncology, and the role of metastasis-directed therapies, including metastasectomy and metastasis-directed radiation therapy (MDRT), is gaining increasing attention. Herein, we summarize available evidence about the role of MDRT with consolidative intent in oligometastatic UC patients. A systematic review was performed in December 2021. Six studies involving 158 patients were identified. Most patients (n = 120, 90.2%) had a history of bladder cancer and the most frequent sites of metastases were lymph nodes (n= 61, 52.1%) followed by the lungs (n = 34, 29%). Overall, 144 metastases were treated with MDRT. Median follow-up ranged from 17.2 to 25 months. Local control rates ranged from 57% to 100%. Median Overall Survival (OS) ranged from 14.9 to 51.0 months and median progression-free survival ranged from 2.9 to 10.1 months. Rates of OS at one and two years ranged from 78.9% to 96% and from 26% to 63%, respectively. Treatment-related toxicity was recorded in few patients and in most cases a low-grade toxicity was evident. MDRT with consolidative intent represents a potential treatment option for selected patients with oligometastatic UC.

1. Introduction

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) represents the fourth and twelfth most common malignancy in men and women, respectively, with the bladder being the usual site of occurrence [1,2,3,4,5]. Despite radical therapies, a significant percentage of patients diagnosed with UC develop metastases during follow-up. In detail, metastatic disease is detected in about 50% of patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy and most of these patients experience distant recurrence [1,2,3,6]. Moreover, 10 to 15% of patients are already metastatic at diagnosis [2]. Before the development of effective chemotherapy, patients with metastatic UC had a median survival rarely exceeding three to six months [1,2,3]. Although the treatment landscape of metastatic UC has been revolutionized in recent years with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors, available therapeutic options remain limited, and overall response rates remain suboptimal [1]. Metastatic UC patients represent a heterogeneous group of subjects. In 1995, Hellmann and Weichselbaum [7] hypothesized the existence of an intermediate clinical entity in the sequence of events leading to the progressive acquirement of metastatic ability from localized to metastatic disease: oligometastatic disease (OMD). OMD patients show distant relapse only in a limited number of regions and OMD is becoming more frequently identified thanks to the introduction of highly sensitive diagnostic modalities [8]. Although significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, a recent ESTRO-ASTRO consensus document defined OMD as one to five metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable [9]. In recent years, the concept of OMD has been extended to UC patients, too [10]. Oligometastatic UC represents a rapidly evolving issue and the management of these patients in everyday clinical practice remains challenging due to the absence of clear recommendations from available guidelines. Metastasis-directed therapies (MDTs), such as metastasectomy and radiotherapy, have been used in the treatment of oligometastatic malignancies such as colorectal cancer with long-term benefits. The use of MDT has gained interest and popularity in the field of uro-oncology for the treatment of oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma and prostate cancer. Several reports, including both upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma and bladder cancer patients, support the hypothesis that resection of metastatic lesions could be safe and oncologically beneficial in selected patients with adequate life expectancy [3,11]. More recently, metastasis-directed radiation therapy (MDRT) with consolidative intent has emerged as a potential alternative to metastasectomy in UC patients with OMD. The aim of the present systematic review is to summarize available evidence about the role of metastasis-directed radiation therapy (MDRT) with consolidative intent in patients with oligometastatic UC.

2. Materials and Methods

The present analysis was conducted and reported according to the general guidelines recommended by the Primary Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [12]. This protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021292657).

2.1. Literature Search

The search was performed in the Medline (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), and Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters, Toronto, ON, Canada) databases up to January 2022. The following terms were combined to capture relevant publications: “oligometastatic” AND (“metastasis directed radiation therapy” OR “consolidative radiotherapy”) AND (“bladder cancer” OR “upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma” OR “urethra carcinoma” OR “urothelial carcinoma”). Reference lists in relevant articles and reviews were also screened for additional studies. Conference abstracts were also considered.

2.2. Selection Criteria, Data Collection, and Statistical Analysis

Two authors (N.L. and G.C.) reviewed the records separately and individually to select relevant publications, with any discrepancies resolved by a third author (L.N.). To assess eligibility for the systematic review, PICOS (participants, intervention, comparisons, outcomes, and study type) criteria were used [13]. PICOS criteria were set as follows: Participants—patients with oligometastatic UC; Intervention—MDRT with consolidative intent; Comparator—none; Outcome—response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, Overall Response Rate (ORR), Local Control Rate (LCR), Overall Survival (OS), 1-year OS, 2-year OS, Progression-Free Survival (PFS), 1-year PFS, 2-year PFS, 3-year PFS, toxicity; Study types—conference abstracts, case reports, case series, retrospective and prospective studies. The following data were extracted from eligible studies: first author, year of publication, study design, sample size, patient age, patient gender, primary tumor site and stage, treatment for primary tumor, definition of OMD, OMD classification (synchronous, metachronous, oligoprogressive), performance status (PS), site, number and size of metastases, time to metastasis, MDRT type, overall number of treated lesions, number of lesions treated per patient, metastatic sites treated, metastases not treated, delivered radiation dose, dose fractionation, contemporary systemic treatments, previous systemic treatments, follow-up duration, response rate according to RECIST criteria, ORR, LCR, OS, 1-year OS percentage, 2-year OS percentage, PFS, 1-year PFS, 2-year PFS, 3-year PFS, and MDRT-related toxicity. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Jadad Score or the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively [14,15]. Ethical approval and patient consent were not required for the present study. The meta-analysis was performed using ProMeta 3 software (Version 2.1) when two or more studies reported the same outcome under the same definition. The effect size (ES) was estimated using the event rate reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using I2 statistics. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. To calculate the pooled effect, a fixed effect model was applied. Egger’s linear regression test and Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test were also used to evaluate the publication bias of studies included in the meta-analysis.

3. Results

The search strategy generated a total of 26 results. The screening of the titles and abstracts determined 18 papers eligible for inclusion. Further assessment of eligibility, based on full-text study of the papers, led to the exclusion of 12 papers. Finally, 6 studies (1 conference abstract and 5 full papers) involving 158 patients were included in the final analysis (Figure 1) [16,17,18,19,20,21].

3.1. Patient Demographics and Tumor Characteristics

Overall, 6 retrospective studies were identified involving a total of 158 patients. Study characteristics, patient demographics, and tumor features are summarized in Table 1. Most of the patients included were male (n = 90, 56.9%), with a median age ranging from 63 to 71 years. The most frequent primary tumor site was the bladder (n = 120, 90.2 %). Radical surgery of the primary tumor was performed in 40 patients (39.6 %). The median time to metastasis was 15.6 months (range: 0–121.8) and the most common sites of metastases were lymph nodes (n = 61, 52.1%) followed by the lungs (n = 34, 29.0%). The type of OMD according to time of occurrence was reported in four studies. Most patients (59.0% to 100%) had metachronous oligometastatic disease (Table 1). The size of metastases was reported by only two authors [17,18]. In the study by Leonetti et al., the diameter of metastases ranged from 10 to 55 mm [17]. In the study by Augugliaro et al. [18], mean metastatic volume ranged from 3 to 88.7 cm3.

3.2. MDRT Protocols

MDRT details are summarized in Table 2. A total of 144 lesions were treated. Details about irradiates sites were provided by three studies. The most common irradiated sites were lymph nodes (n = 44). In two studies, MDRT was performed to treat all metastatic sites. MDRT was performed through Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) in 67 patients (59.8%) and through CyberKnife (Accuracy Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in 15 patients (2.39%). The median delivered radiation dose ranged from 25 to 55 Gy. Dose fractionation was only reported by Augugliaro et al. (median: 5; range: 3–10) and by Franzese et al. (range: 1–10) [18,20]. Overall, 75 patients (47.4 %) received systemic therapy before MDRT, while 36 patients (22.7 %) received systemic therapy during MDRT. The median duration of follow up was 37.73 months (range: 3–91).

3.3. MDRT Outcomes

The outcomes of MDRT are reported in Table 3. Local control was assessed through RECIST criteria in 56 patients (35.4%). CR, PR, and SD were observed in 14 (25.0%), 12 (21.4%), and 15 (26.7%) patients, respectively. PD was observed in 5 patients (8.9%). ORR and LCR were observed in a percentage of patients ranging from 38% to 57% and from 57% to 100%, respectively. Median OS was reported in 4 studies and ranged from 12.3 to 54.0 months. Rates of OS at 1- and 2-year follow-ups ranged from 78.9% to 96.0% and from 26.0% to 63.0%, respectively. A single study reported 3-year OS rates (43.3%). Median PFS was reported in 4 studies and was 20.8 months (range: 1.4–5.5). PFS rates at 1- and 2-year follow-ups ranged from 47.9% to 71.0% and from 19.0% to 38.1%, respectively. Pooled data from studies reporting ORR, 2-year PFS, and OS are reported in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. Bias evaluation is reported in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7. Toxicity was evaluated in five studies. Grade 1 acute and late toxicities were reported in six and two patients, respectively. Grade ≥2 toxicity was reported in six patients.

4. Discussion

Recently, the overall perspective on metastatic disease has changed dramatically, due to both the availability of novel imaging modalities and the improvement of treatment options. With respect to metastatic UC patients, there have been two major advancements that have significantly modified their prognoses. On the one hand, immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as a promising alternative to conventional chemotherapy, with the advantage of improving objective response rates [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. On the other hand, the concept of OMD, firstly introduced by Hellman et al. in 1995 as that of tumor states intermediate between purely localized and widely metastatic disease, has also been extended to UC, and patients with low burden of disease have been considered amenable to local treatment of metastatic disease [7,20]. Metastases represent potential sources of further metastatic spread. Therefore, the rationale behind MDT is that the eradication of a low number of metastases will hamper further metastatic dissemination, thus improving PFS and OS [31]. Typically, MDTs can be achieved by surgical metastasectomy or MDRT. Patient selection and treatment allocation represent a debated and complex topic when dealing with oligometastatic patients. Surgical metastasectomy has been incorporated into National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as an option for selected oligometastatic UC patients with good response to systemic therapy [32]. However, due to the often extensive and difficult nature of the surgery, this procedure can be proposed only for highly selected patients with adequate performance and comorbidity status [32]. Traditionally, radiotherapy has been limited to disease palliation. In recent years, MDRT with consolidative intent has emerged as a more-attractive alternative to metastasectomy in oligometastatic patients thanks to its being less invasive [19]. The SABR-COMET and ORIOLE randomized trials demonstrated improved oncologic outcomes with MDRT in patients with several metastatic cancers [33,34].
Herein, we have summarized for the first-time available evidence about the role of MDRT with consolidative intent in patients with oligometastatic UC. Current evidence mainly derives from retrospective small series mainly involving oligometastatic bladder cancer patients with a history of radical surgery. Baseline patient characteristics deserve consideration as they reveal the tendency to select metastatic UC patients at good prognosis for treatment with MDRT. Most patients were young, had lymph node metastases, and good PS. These characteristics define a subgroup of patients with good prognoses. Indeed, a Karnofsky PS of ≤80% and presence of visceral metastases have been reported to represent independent prognostic factors of poor survival after treatment with MVAC, and these prognostic factors have also been validated for newer combination chemotherapy regimens [2,35]. Another relevant aspect is the timing of occurrence of OMD. In this context, OMD is commonly classified as synchronous or metachronous (often referred to as oligorecurrent) based on the time interval between primary cancer diagnosis and the development of OMD [9]. Metachronous OMD occurs when metastases are diagnosed 3–6 months from the diagnosis of the primary tumor. Most patients enrolled in the studies summarized in the present review had metachronous disease with a median time between diagnosis of the primary tumor to metastasis ranging from 12.9 to 2 months. The length of the disease-free interval has been reported as having a prognostic impact [9]. In patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer, metachronous metastases represent a significant predictor for improved OS [36].
Results from the present systematic review show LCRs (tumor volume equal to or less than the tumor volume at the start of radiotherapy) ranging from 72.0% to 100% and ORRs (complete or partial response) ranging from 38% to 57%. In comparison, in their recent systematic review assessing the outcomes of radiotherapy in oligometastatic prostate cancer patients, Rogowsky et al. reported LCRs ranging between 76 and 100% at 2 years [37].
Although response to therapy is commonly performed through computerized tomography, improvements in response evaluation are considered necessary and the use of radionuclides may represent a valid alternative [38].
Median OS ranges from 14.9 to 51.0 months with a median PFS ranging from 2.9 to 8.2 months. Of note, Muilwijk et al. found a median OS of 98.2 months in their subset of 22 oligometastatic UC patients undergoing metastasectomy [1]. In comparison, Rogowsky et al. reported PFS values ranging from 38 to 100% at 1 year and from 22–83% at 2 years and a median PFS ranging from 7 to 63 months [37]. Predictors of MDRT efficacy have been investigated only in a few cases. In the study by Miranda et al., the exploratory analysis of factors influencing OS among patients treated with MDRT with consolidative intent showed improved OS in patients treated with concurrent systemic therapy during MDRT (51 vs. 12 months, p = 0.01) and no difference with respect to ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, radiation modality, and radiologic response in the target lesion [19]. Interestingly, the majority (67%) of patients in the study by Miranda et al. received concurrent treatment with immuno-oncology agents. In this context, preliminary evidence suggests the existence of a potential synergistic effect deriving from the combination of immuno-oncology agents and MDRT [35]. Recent evidence suggests that the tumor immune microenvironment can be stimulated by radiation. Indeed, radiation can lead to the activation of adaptive and innate immune response, with activation of cytotoxic T cells following the release of tumor antigens caused by cell death [39]. Other prognostic variables associated with better outcomes include higher dose of SBRT, lower number of metastases, and lower number of lines of systemic therapy before SBRT. Of note, the available evidence demonstrates that MDR carries minimal morbidity, with only a minority of patients experiencing toxicity. Although this finding is in line with published studies on MDRT, data are still poor and suboptimal and further studies are needed to confirm long-term safety [33,34]. Evidence synthesized in the present review indicates the limitations of the current literature regarding the role of MDRT in oligometatstic UC patients and provides a basis for further investigations. Major limits of the available studies include retrospective, single-institution, and often uncontrolled designs, small sample sizes, and short follow-up periods. Moreover, series are heterogeneous in terms of patient characteristics, definitions of oligometastatic states, treatment protocols, and outcomes assessed. Finally, MDRT has been carried out at different time-points along the natural history of the disease and details about the type of chemotherapy performed before, during, or after MDRT are often unavailable. Future research efforts should include rigorous definitions of diagnostic modalities and criteria for the definition of OMD in UC patients. Despite promising preliminary results, the role of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-computed tomography deserves further investigation [31,40]. Molecular biomarkers such ad miRNAs and exosomes that have been reported to be involved in the regulation of the metastatic cascade and in the switch from oligometastatic to polymetastatic states may represent potential alternatives [41]. Moreover, predictors of response to MDRT should be carefully investigated to adequately select patients as candidates for this treatment strategy. In this context, a phase II, multicenter, randomized open-label, and comparative study designed to evaluate whether local consolidative radiotherapy plus standard of care can improves OS as compared to standard of care in patients with limited metastatic urothelial bladder cancer and without progression following the initial phase of first-line systemic therapy is ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04428554).

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, available evidence supports the role of MDRT as a safe and efficacious option in treating selected oligometastatic UC patients. It has the potential to facilitate local disease control and overall survival. Nonetheless, in the absence of data from randomized controlled trials, patients should be evaluated on an individual basis and the decision to perform MDRT with consolidative intent should be made in a joint decision-making process with the patient.

Author Contributions

M.C. (Massimiliano Creta), N.L., G.C. (Giuseppe Celentano), and L.N. conceived and designed the study; S.M., C.T., C.C., L.C., G.M.F. and M.C. (Marco Capece) collected the data; A.C., A.S., R.L.R., F.D.B., L.S., C.S. and F.F. curated the data; C.C.R., F.M., G.C. (Gianluigi Califano) and L.N. analyzed the data; M.C. (Massimiliano Creta), A.S., G.C. (Giuseppe Celentano), L.N. and N.L. wrote the paper; M.C. (Massimiliano Creta) supervised the study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Muilwijk, T.; Akand, M.; Van der Aa, F.; Dumez, H.; De Meerleer, G.; Van Raemdonck, D.; De Leyn, P.; Van Poppel, H.; Albersen, M.; Joniau, S. Metastasectomy of oligometastatic urothelial cancer: A single-center experience. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2020, 9, 1296–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Witjes, J.A.; Bruins, H.M.; Cathomas, R.; Compérat, E.M.; Cowan, N.C.; Gakis, G.; Hernández, V.; Linares Espinós, E.; Lorch, A.; Neuzillet, Y.; et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Summary of the 2020 Guidelines. Eur. Urol. 2021, 79, 82–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lemke, E.; Sahasrabudhe, D.; Guancial, E.; Bylow, K.; Johnson, S.; Messing, E.; Kilari, D. The Role of Metastasectomy in Urothelial Carcinoma: Where are We in 2020? Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2020, 18, e478–e483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Tarantino, G.; Crocetto, F.; Di Vito, C.; Creta, M.; Martino, R.; Pandolfo, S.D.; Pesce, S.; Napolitano, L.; Capone, D.; Imbimbo, C. Association of NAFLD and Insulin Resistance with Non Metastatic Bladder Cancer Patients: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Collà Ruvolo, C.; Nocera, L.; Stolzenbach, L.F.; Wenzel, M.; Califano, G.; Tian, Z.; Verze, P.; Shariat, S.F.; Saad, F.; Briganti, A.; et al. Tumor Size Predicts Muscle-invasive and non-organ-confined Disease in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma at Radical Nephroureterectomy. Eur. Urol. Focus 2021, in press. [CrossRef]
  6. Creta, M.; Fusco, F.; La Rocca, R.; Capece, M.; Celentano, G.; Imbimbo, C.; Imperatore, V.; Russo, L.; Mangiapia, F.; Mirone, V.; et al. Short- and Long-Term Evaluation of Renal Function after Radical Cystectomy and Cutaneous Ureterostomy in High-Risk Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hellman, S.; Weichselbaum, R.R. Oligometastases. J. Clin. Oncol. 1995, 13, 8–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Matsushita, H.; Jingu, K.; Umezawa, R.; Yamamoto, T.; Ishikawa, Y.; Takahashi, N.; Katagiri, Y.; Kadoya, N. Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Oligometastases in Lymph Nodes—A Review. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2018, 17, 1533033818803597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lievens, Y.; Guckenberger, M.; Gomez, D.; Hoyer, M.; Iyengar, P.; Kindts, I.; Méndez Romero, A.; Nevens, D.; Palma, D.; Park, C.; et al. Defining oligometastatic disease from a radiation oncology perspective: An ESTRO-ASTRO consensus document. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 148, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ogihara, K.; Kikuchi, E.; Watanabe, K.; Kufukihara, R.; Yanai, Y.; Takamatsu, K.; Matsumoto, K.; Hara, S.; Oyama, M.; Monma, T.; et al. Can urologists introduce the concept of “oligometastasis” for metastatic bladder cancer after total cystectomy? Oncotarget 2017, 8, 111819–111835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Faltas, B.M.; Gennarelli, R.L.; Elkin, E.; Nguyen, D.P.; Hu, J.; Tagawa, S.T. Metastasectomy in older adults with urothelial carcinoma: Population-based analysis of use and outcomes. Urol. Oncol. 2018, 36, e11–e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Schardt, C.; Adams, M.B.; Owens, T.; Keitz, S.; Fontelo, P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2007, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Jadad, A.R. Randomised Controlled Trials; BMJ Publishing Group: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  15. Slim, K.; Nini, E.; Forestier, D.; Kwiatkowski, F.; Panis, Y.; Chipponi, J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): Development and validation of a new instrument. Anz. J. Surg. 2003, 73, 712–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Abe, T.; Minami, K.; Harabayashi, T.; Sazawa, A.; Chiba, H.; Kikuchi, H.; Miyata, H.; Frumido, J.; Matsumoto, R.; Osawa, T.; et al. Prognostic impact of local radiotherapy on metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 50, 206–213, Erratum in Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 50, 727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Leonetti, A.; D’Abbiero, N.; Baldari, G.; Andreani, S.; Ruffini, L.; Viansone, A.A.; Buti, S. Radiotherapy for the treatment of distant nodes metastases from oligometastatic urothelial cancer: A retrospective case series. Int. J. Urol. 2018, 25, 879–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Augugliaro, M.; Marvaso, G.; Ciardo, D.; Zerini, D.; Riva, G.; Rondi, E.; Vigorito, S.; Comi, S.; De Cobelli, O.; Orecchia, R.; et al. Recurrent oligometastatic transitional cell bladder carcinoma: Is there room for radiotherapy? Neoplasma 2019, 66, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Miranda, A.F.; Howard, J.M.; McLaughlin, M.; Meng, X.; Clinton, T.; Şanli, Ö.; Garant, A.; Bagrodia, A.; Margulis, V.; Lotan, Y.; et al. Metastasis-directed radiation therapy after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Urol. Oncol. 2021, 39, e1–e790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Franzese, C.; Francolini, G.; Nicosia, L.; Alongi, F.; Livi, L.; Scorsetti, M. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in the Management of Oligometastatic and Oligoprogressive Bladder Cancer and Other Urothelial Malignancies. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 33, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aboudaram, A.; Chaltiel, L.; Graff, P.; Pouessel, D.; Chevreau, C.; Khalifa, J. Role of consolidative radiotherapy for metastatic urothelial bladder cancer patients without progression and with no more than five residual metastatic lesions following first line systemic therapy: A retrospective analysis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2020, 108, e871–e872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Creta, M.; Mirone, V.; Di Meo, S.; Buonopane, R.; Fusco, F.; Imperatore, V. Endoscopic Spatulation of the Intramural Ureter: A Technique to Prevent Stenosis of the Ureterovesical Junction in Patients Undergoing Resection of the Ureteral Orifice. J. Endourol. 2016, 30, 913–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Creta, M.; Celentano, G.; Napolitano, L.; La Rocca, R.; Capece, M.; Califano, G.; Collà Ruvolo, C.; Mangiapia, F.; Morra, S.; Turco, C.; et al. Inhibition of Androgen Signalling Improves the Outcomes of Therapies for Bladder Cancer: Results from a Systematic Review of Preclinical and Clinical Evidence and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Regnier, S.; Califano, G.; Elalouf, V.; Albisinni, S.; Aziz, A.; Di Trapani, E.; Krajewski, W.; Mari, A.; D'Andrea, D.; Pradère, B.; et al. Restaging transurethral resection in ta high-grade nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2022, 32, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Francolini, G.; Desideri, I.; Detti, B.; Di Cataldo, V.; Masi, L.; Caramia, G.; Visani, L.; Terziani, F.; Muntoni, C.; Lo Russo, M.; et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy in oligoprogressive and oligorecurrent urothelial cancer patients: A retrospective experience. Cancer Treat. Res. Commun. 2019, 19, 100124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Peyrottes, A.; Ouzaid, I.; Califano, G.; Hermieu, J.F.; Xylinas, E. Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Medicina 2021, 57, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Califano, G.; Ouzaid, I.; Verze, P.; Stivalet, N.; Hermieu, J.F.; Xylinas, E. New immunotherapy treatments in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Arch. Esp. Urol. 2020, 73, 945–953. [Google Scholar]
  28. Califano, G.; Ouzaid, I.; Verze, P.; Hermieu, J.F.; Mirone, V.; Xylinas, E. Immune checkpoint inhibition in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. World J. Urol. 2021, 39, 1357–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pradère, B.; Califano, G.; Xylinas, E. Perioperative chemotherapy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Show me the evidence. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2021, 31, 66–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Califano, G.; Xylinas, E. Re: Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy Followed by Extirpative Surgery in Patients with High Grade Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2020, 78, 113–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Berghen, C.; Joniau, S.; Vulsteke, C.; Albersen, M.; Devos, G.; Rans, K.; Haustermans, K.; De Meerleer, G. Metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic urological tumours: Still no second-hand news. Ecancermedicalscience 2020, 14, 1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Flaig, T.W.; Spiess, P.E.; Agarwal, N.; Bangs, R.; Boorjian, S.A.; Buyyounouski, M.K.; Chang, S.; Downs, T.M.; Efstathiou, J.A.; Friedlander, T.; et al. Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2020, 18, 329–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Palma, D.A.; Olson, R.; Harrow, S.; Gaede, S.; Louie, A.V.; Haasbeek, C.; Mulroy, L.; Lock, M.; Rodrigues, G.B.; Yaremko, B.P.; et al. Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic Cancers: Long-Term Results of the SABR-COMET Phase II Randomized Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 2830–2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Phillips, R.; Shi, W.Y.; Deek, M.; Radwan, N.; Lim, S.J.; Antonarakis, E.S.; Rowe, S.P.; Ross, A.E.; Gorin, M.A.; Deville, C.; et al. Outcomes of Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: The ORIOLE Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, 650–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Bajorin, D.F.; Dodd, P.M.; Mazumdar, M.; Fazzari, M.; McCaffrey, J.A.; Scher, H.I.; Herr, H.; Higgins, G.; Boyle, M.G. Long-term survival in metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma and prognostic factors predicting outcome of therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 1999, 17, 3173–3181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Werner, R.S.; Opitz, I. Patient Selection for Local Aggressive Treatment in Oligometastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancers 2021, 13, 6374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rogowski, P.; Trapp, C.; von Bestenbostel, R.; Schmidt-Hegemann, N.S.; Shi, R.; Ilhan, H.; Kretschmer, A.; Stief, C.; Ganswindt, U.; Belka, C.; et al. Outcomes of metastasis-directed therapy of bone oligometastatic prostate cancer. Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 16, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Mertens, L.S.; Horenblas, S. Bladder cancer: Oligometastases and imaging. Nat. Rev. Urol. 2017, 14, 513–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ukleja, J.; Kusaka, E.; Miyamoto, D.T. Immunotherapy Combined With Radiation Therapy for Genitourinary Malignancies. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 663852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sundahl, N.; Vandekerkhove, G.; Decaestecker, K.; Meireson, A.; De Visschere, P.; Fonteyne, V.; De Maeseneer, D.; Reynders, D.; Goetghebeur, E.; Van Dorpe, J.; et al. Randomized Phase 1 Trial of Pembrolizumab with Sequential Versus Concomitant Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2019, 75, 707–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lussier, Y.A.; Xing, H.R.; Salama, J.K.; Khodarev, N.N.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Khan, S.A.; Yang, X.; Hasselle, M.D.; Darga, T.E.; et al. MicroRNA expression characterizes oligometastasis(es). PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e28650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 14 02373 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the systematic review.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the systematic review.
Cancers 14 02373 g001
Cancers 14 02373 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot showing the event rate for Overall Response Rate. ES, effect size; CI, confidence interval. (I2 = 0.00, p = 0.368.)
Figure 2. Forest plot showing the event rate for Overall Response Rate. ES, effect size; CI, confidence interval. (I2 = 0.00, p = 0.368.)
Cancers 14 02373 g002
Cancers 14 02373 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot showing the event rate for 2-year progression-free survival. ES, effect size; CI, confidence interval. (I2 = 25.39, p = 0.262.)
Figure 3. Forest plot showing the event rate for 2-year progression-free survival. ES, effect size; CI, confidence interval. (I2 = 25.39, p = 0.262.)
Cancers 14 02373 g003
Cancers 14 02373 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot showing the event rate for 2-year overall survival. ES, effect size; CI, confidence interval. (I2 = 42.91, p = 0.154.)
Figure 4. Forest plot showing the event rate for 2-year overall survival. ES, effect size; CI, confidence interval. (I2 = 42.91, p = 0.154.)
Cancers 14 02373 g004
Cancers 14 02373 g005 550
Figure 5. Funnel plots of the meta-analysis evaluating the event rate for 2-year progression-free survival. Egger’s linear regression (t= −28.93, p = 0.022) and Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test (z = −1.57, p = 0.117).
Figure 5. Funnel plots of the meta-analysis evaluating the event rate for 2-year progression-free survival. Egger’s linear regression (t= −28.93, p = 0.022) and Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test (z = −1.57, p = 0.117).
Cancers 14 02373 g005
Cancers 14 02373 g006 550
Figure 6. Funnel plots of the meta-analysis evaluating the event rate for 2-year overall survival. Egger’s linear regression (t= −0.47, p = 0.683) and Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test (z = −0.68, p = 0.497).
Figure 6. Funnel plots of the meta-analysis evaluating the event rate for 2-year overall survival. Egger’s linear regression (t= −0.47, p = 0.683) and Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test (z = −0.68, p = 0.497).
Cancers 14 02373 g006
Cancers 14 02373 g007 550
Figure 7. Funnel plots of the meta-analysis evaluating the event rate for Overall Response Rate. Egger’s linear regression (t = −0.98, p = 0.505) and Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test (z = −0.52, p = 0.602).
Figure 7. Funnel plots of the meta-analysis evaluating the event rate for Overall Response Rate. Egger’s linear regression (t = −0.98, p = 0.505) and Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test (z = −0.52, p = 0.602).
Cancers 14 02373 g007
Table
Table 1. Study characteristics and clinico-pathological features of the patients enrolled.
Table 1. Study characteristics and clinico-pathological features of the patients enrolled.
AuthorMINORSSample Size (n)Age at MDRT, Years, Median (Range)M: FPrimary TumorOMD CriteriaTime to MTX, Mo,
Median (Range)		OMD Classification
(n, %)		PSMTX Site (n)
Site (n)Stage (n)Treatment
Type (n)
Leonetti [17]10767
(47–79)		6:1B (5)
P or Ur (2)		pT3N3cM0 (1)
pT2N3cM1 (1)
pT2N0cM0 (1)
pT1cN0M0 (1)
pT3N1cM0 (1)
pT2cN0M0 (1)
pT3cN0M0 (1)		Radical surgery (7)≤3 MTX and no liver MTX12.9
(0–33.6)		SO (1, 14.2)
MO (6, 85.7)		n.a.Ln (14)
Augugliaro [18]91368
(50–80)		n.a.B (13)n.a.RC (12)≤5 MTX23.0
(8–105)		MO (13, 100)90 (80–90) *Ln (18)
Lung (1)
Pelvic recurrence (1)
Pelvic bone (1)
Abe [16]82564
(45–79)		18:7n.a.n.a.n.a.MTX in a single organ with a small number of MTXn.a.n.a.ECOG 0 (21)
ECOG 1 (3)
ECOG 2 (0)
ECOG 3 (0)
n.a. (1)		n.a.
Aboudaram [21]-31n.a.n.a.B (31)n.a.n.a.≤5 residual MTX and no disease progression following chemotherapyn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.
Franzese [20]106171
(48.2–86.2)		51:10B (50)
P (7)
Ur (3)
U (1)		n.a.Local control (61)≤5 MTX and maximum diameter ≤5 cm14.5
(0–121.8)		SO (3, 4.9)
MO (36, 59.0)
OP (22, 36.0)		n.a.Lung (33)
Ln (29)
Liver (7)
Bone (5)
Adrenal (4)
Other (4)
Miranda [19]82163
(n.a.)		15:6B (21)T2 (n.a.)
T3 (n.a.)		RC (21)≤4 MTX12.1
(6.8–36) #		SO (3) #
MO (49)#		ECOG 0–1 (17)
ECOG 2–5 (4)		n.a.
B: Bladder; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Ln: Lymph nodes; MO: Metachronous oligometastatic; n.a.: not available; P: Pelvis; PS: Performance Status; RC: Radical Cystectomy; Ur: Ureter; U: Urethra; *: Karnofsky Performance Status, median (range); #: values calculated for the overall study population.
Table
Table 2. MDRT details.
Table 2. MDRT details.
AuthorMDRT Technique (N)Overall Number of Treated Lesions (n)Treated Lesions per Patient
n (%)		Sites Treated
Site (n)		Sites Not Treated, n (%)Delivered Dose, Gy, Median (Range)Systemic Therapy before MDRT
Type (n)		Systemic Therapy during MDRT
Type (n)		Fu, Mo, Median (Range)
Leonetti [17]SBRT (14)141 lesion: 2 (28.5)
>1 lesions: 5 (71.4)		All sites032 (25–40)n.a. (2)n.a. (1)n.a.
Augugliaro [18]IMRT (n.a.)
CyberKnife (n.a.)		211 lesion: 8 (61.5)
>1 lesions: 5 (38.4)		All sites025 (20–36)GC (7)n.a.25 (3–43)
Abe [16]n.a.271 lesion: 20 (80.0)
>1 lesions: 5 (20.0)		Ln (12)
Lung (1)
Bone (5)
Liver (5)
Local recurrence (4)
Bladder (3)
Other sites (1)		4 (16.0)55 (30–69)(n.a.) (6)n.a. (5)n.a.
Aboudaram [21]n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.a.a.>5031 (100)n.a.71 (n.a.)
Franzese [20]Cyberknife (15)
VMAT (67)		821 lesion: 37 (60.7)
>1 lesions: 24 (39.2)		n.a.24 (39.3)45 (18–70)n.a. (29)GC or carboplatin + gemcitabine, or vinflunine (14)17.2 (3–91)
Miranda [19]SBRT (16)
Non-SBRT (5)		n.a.1 lesion: 9 (43)
>1 lesions: 12 (57.0)		n.a.0n.a.n.a.n.a. (16)n.a.
Fu: Follow-up; GC: Gemcitabine + Cisplatin; IMRT: Intensity-Modutated Radiation Therapy; MDRT: Metastasis-Directed Radio Therapy; n.a.: not available; SBRT: Stereotaxic Body Radiation Therapy; VMAT: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.
Table
Table 3. MDRT outcomes.
Table 3. MDRT outcomes.
AuthorResponse Rate **
Type, n (%)		ORR (%)LCR (%)OS, Mo, Median (95% CI)1-Year OS (%)2-Year OS (%)3-Year OS (%)PFS, Mo, Median (95% CI)1-Year PFS (%)2-Year PFS (%)Systemic Therapy after MDRT
Type (n)		Prognostic VariablesToxicity
Grade (n)
Leonetti [17]PR, 6 (43.0)
SD, 8 (57.0)		43.010014.9 (12.3–17.5)n.a.n.a.n.a.2.9 (2.6–3.1)n.a.n.a.n.a.Higher dose of SBRT associated with higher lesion progression-free interval0
Augugliaro [18]CR, 11 (52.0)
PR, 1 (5.0)
SD, 0 (0)
LPE, 8 (38.0)
NE, 1 (5.0)		57.057.0n.a.n.a.26.0n.a.5.8 (n.a.)n.a.n.a.GC (1)n.a.Grade 1 (Acute) (1)
Abe [16]n.a.n.a.n.a.29.0 (17–54)n.a.n.a.43.3n.a.n.a.n.a. n.a.n.a.
Aboudaram [21]n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.96.063.0n.a.n.a.71.029.0 n.a.Grade ≥ 3 (0)
Franzese [20]n.a.n.a.88.925.6 (n.a.)78.950.7n.a.10.1 (n.a.)47.938.1n.a.Lines of systemic therapy before SBRT associated with inferior local control.
Higher number of metastases associated with inferior PFS
Total delivered dose associated with OS		Grade 1 (Acute) (5)
Grade 1 (Late) (2)
Miranda [19]CR, 3 (14.0)
PR, 5 (24.0)
SD, 7 (34.0)
PD, 5 (24.0)
n.a., 1 (4.8)		38.072.051.0 (n.a.)n.a.60.0n.a.8.2 (1.4–5.5)n.a.19.0n.a.Concurrent systemic therapy during MDRT associated with improved OSCTCAE Grade ≥ 2 (5)
CTCAE Grade ≥ 3 (1)
CSS: Cancer-Specific Survival; CR: Complete Response; GC: Gemcitabine + Cisplatin; LCR: Local Control Rate; LPD: Local Progression Disease; MDRT: Metastasis-Directed Radiation Therapy; NE: not evaluable; n.a.: not available; OS: Overall Survival; ORR: Overall Response Rate; PD: Progressive Disease; PFS: Progression-Free Survival; PR: Partial Response; SCTCAE: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; SD: Stable Disease; **: According to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Longo, N.; Celentano, G.; Napolitano, L.; La Rocca, R.; Capece, M.; Califano, G.; Collà Ruvolo, C.; Mangiapia, F.; Fusco, F.; Morra, S.; et al. Metastasis-Directed Radiation Therapy with Consolidative Intent for Oligometastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2022, 14, 2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14102373

AMA Style

Longo N, Celentano G, Napolitano L, La Rocca R, Capece M, Califano G, Collà Ruvolo C, Mangiapia F, Fusco F, Morra S, et al. Metastasis-Directed Radiation Therapy with Consolidative Intent for Oligometastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2022; 14(10):2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14102373

Chicago/Turabian Style

Longo, Nicola, Giuseppe Celentano, Luigi Napolitano, Roberto La Rocca, Marco Capece, Gianluigi Califano, Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Francesco Mangiapia, Ferdinando Fusco, Simone Morra, and et al. 2022. "Metastasis-Directed Radiation Therapy with Consolidative Intent for Oligometastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Cancers 14, no. 10: 2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14102373

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop