Given the results of LU002 presented at ASCO 2024, are there situations and/or patient subgroups who still derive benefit from local consolidative therapy for oligometastatic NSCLC?   

This is a tricky trial to interpret. They allowed a mixture of "stage I" primaries with oligomets and "stage III" locoregional disease with oligomets. The former got SBRT to the primary and the latter got 45 Gy/15 fx to primary and involved LN. There is a huge difference in the "ablativeness" of tho...

What role does local therapy play in the setting of disseminated disease? A deceptively simple question, it belies the evolving therapeutic landscape of personalized care. Local control is a worthy goal for unresectable patients for whom progression would lead to problems regardless of systemic dise...

Certainly was a disappointing result but I still do believe there are subsets that would demonstrate greater benefit of the addition of local therapies as they transition to maintenance IO. I think MRD ctDNA could play a pivotal role in patient selection for these approaches moving forward, and alte...

Decide if local treatment is indicated, that is the first step, followed by the choice of dose and technique, the former dictated by tumor-related factors, namely target volume and location, and the latter by treatment-related factors, namely, available technology and expertise; RTOG 0617 is, perhap...

I think it's an interesting time for Radiation Oncology in the stage 4 setting. If you've ever seen the Gartner Hype Cycle graph, it's worth seeing and considering in this context (Gartner Hype Cycle). I would say the "Gomez Trial" is the peak of inflated expectations, and LU002 is perhaps the troug...

No! Not outside a clinical trial. I also request that folks discussing this issue avoid vague terms like ablation, ablative dose, and ablative intent that have no biological basis.