EXTEND-OP
oligoprogressive metastatic disease; tests no drug
EXTEND-OP compares local consolidation with next-line systemic therapy in oligoprogressive metastatic disease; sequencing clarification resolved a speaker’s progression-free survival objection. The report cites three radiation oncologists, including a speaker described in the source as a principal investigator. Further debate concerns when deferring next-line systemic therapy has value and which breast-cancer patients might benefit from line preservation. How should treatment delay be distinguished from benefit through the next systemic line, while keeping toxicity and patient selection in view?
- NCT06367972 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Nov 1, 2026
- Focused
4 findings, and what sits behind each
01. The PFS objection became acceptance after the treatment sequence was clarified
10 statements · 9 passages · 2 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Safety and adverse events (AEs), The comparison, Population and setting, Design and conduct.
02. Deferring the next systemic line was valued conditionally, not equated with superior PFS
5 statements · 3 passages · 2 sources · 1 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Primary endpoint: Safety and adverse events (AEs), Safety and tolerability.
03. Breast-cancer support for line preservation was selective and qualified by contrasting studies
10 statements · 7 passages · 1 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
04. Investigator enthusiasm concerned patient-centered evidence and colorectal accrual, not demonstrated benefit
3 statements · 3 passages · 2 sources · 1 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct, Population and setting, The comparison.
Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings. They show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree. The full report includes the interpretations and source links.
Select a finding to see what the full report holds for it: how many verified HCP statements and of what kind, the passages behind them, the sources and voices, and the counterview and limits it records. Select a part of the trial to see which findings draw on it.
- Finding 1 of 4
The PFS objection became acceptance after the treatment sequence was clarified
- statements
- 10
- passages
- 9
- sources
- 2
- named voices
- 2
What the statements areViews 2Questions and uncertainty 3Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 5How passages are usedSupporting a statement 10Giving context 4Recorded with the finding- Counterview: none recorded
- Limitations: 3
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 1 post or article
- 1 registry
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Safety and adverse events (AEs), The comparison, Population and setting, Design and conduct.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 10 statements cited to source and date, and the 2 sources linked where public.
Thicker lines mean more shared statements. A finding without a line goes beyond the registered design. Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings, and they show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree.
The full EXTEND-OP report gives each finding its interpretation, the attributed views behind it, counterviews, limits and the verified HCP statements, each linked to the original. Get a complete report free to see what you get.
How should Medical Affairs distinguish treatment-delay value from benefit through the next systemic line, while preserving toxicity and patient-selection caveats?
Raised by the leading finding. The report shows what clinicians said and the sources behind it; it does not settle the question.
By the numbers
free- 6HCP commentary sources screened
- 4sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 5named in screened sources
- 4voices cited in the report
- 4cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
- 25verified statements, each linked to its source
- 15of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 4findings
Screened sources were retrieved for this trial. Cited sources back at least one verified statement and include primary sources used for context. No count estimates how many clinicians hold a view. Size (Focused) is set by the 25 verified statements. Statements from sponsors, hosts and organisations are labelled and count apart from identified clinicians. A confirmed clinical role is one verified by the NPI registry or by the person's own institution's staff page; a role a source only states is not counted.
What's inside
free| Section | Items | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 4 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 5 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 25 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 8 | Free |
| Sources with links | 4 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 4 | Paid |
Trial aspects
8 discussed · 0 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Safety and adverse events (AEs) | 6 | 1 |
| Population and setting | 9 | 2 |
| The comparison | 9 | 2 |
| Safety and tolerability | 1 | 1 |
| Design and conduct | 5 | 3 |
| CURB, RADIANT and AVATAR: selective breast-cancer line preservation | 9 | 1 |
| Value of deferring next-line therapy and the alternative add-on question | 4 | 1 |
| Patient-centered endpoints | 2 | 2 |
An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.
Sources
free| Channel | Screened | Cited | |
|---|---|---|---|
| X threads | 6 | 3 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Registry | not screened | 1 | |
max 2 / quarter
- Screened window
- Sep 29, 2024 → Oct 9, 2026
- Cited window
- Oct 1, 2025 → Oct 9, 2026
- Retrieved
- Nov 1, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- A Randomized Phase II Basket Trial EXTENDing Efficacy of Systemic Therapy With Local Consolidative Therapy for OligoProgressive Metastatic Disease (EXTEND-OP)
- Registry
- NCT06367972
- Study IDs
- 2024-0070 · NCI-2024-03278 (NCI-CTRP Clinical Registry)
- Sponsor
- M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
- Design
- Phase 2/Phase 3 · Interventional, randomized, single group
- Status
- Recruiting
- Enrollment
- 400 estimated
- Registered
- 2024-04-16
- Start
- 2024-06-06 actual
- Primary completion
- 2028-10-10 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- Safety and adverse events (AEs)
- Interventions
- 2 registered
Scope and limits
freeThis report does not judge efficacy, estimate HCP prevalence or consensus or give treatment advice.
- Discussion that does not name the trial may be missing from this edition.
- Some passages in the sources used in this report were not fully assessed for clinician views, so a view there may be missing from this edition.
- 10 statements in the sources reviewed for this edition are about other patients or topics, or only mention the trial, and are not counted.
- Further source limits apply, so some matching discussion may be missing.
- The sources reviewed for this edition do not represent all HCP discussion or establish consensus. Some potentially relevant discussion was not fully assessed, and comments that did not name the trial or used other name variants may be missing.
- Some speakers' identities or clinical roles are not established in the sources used in this report; each statement is attributed only as far as its source shows.
- The CURB, RADIANT and AVATAR figures remain attributed to a speaker’s summaries. Comparisons across these studies do not establish causal effects of earlier treatment, fewer lesions or a particular selection strategy.
- A speaker, described in the source as a principal investigator of EXTEND-OP, discussed anticipated evidence and completed colorectal recruitment. These statements do not establish clinical benefit, safety or recruitment status across every EXTEND-OP cohort.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeLast checked for new commentary Nov 1, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update. No corrections.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. EXTEND-OP (NCT06367972): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Nov 1, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/extend-op-nct06367972
For your AI agent
Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot or your own agent. It previews this report through the free Erudio MCP server, tells you whether it answers your question, and orders it if you ask. Some agents ask you to confirm pasted instructions before acting; that is expected.
Help me decide whether to buy the Erudio report "EXTEND-OP" (NCT06367972), and buy it for me if I ask. Erudio reports cover what clinicians say in public about one clinical trial, with every verified statement linked to its source.
1. Use the free Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/free; it needs no sign-in. Nothing needs installing: if it is not connected in this app and you can make HTTP requests, call it directly with JSON-RPC POSTs to that URL (initialize, then tools/call), sending "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream". Call get_report_card with slug "extend-op-06367972". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/extend-op-nct06367972.md instead.
2. In a few lines, tell me what the report covers: its findings, its verified statements and sources, its evidence window, what it leaves out, and the price of each product (offer). Then ask what I need it for, and say plainly whether this report answers it.
3. If I want it, ask for my work email and the product: the current edition, or 3, 6 or 12 months of weekly updates. Call create_order with report "NCT06367972", that product and email, then show me the quote and the checkout_url to pay by card. If you have a payment client for HTTP 402 payments and I agree, you can pay the pay_url instead. Nothing is charged until one is paid.
4. Once it is paid, call get_order with the status_url: it returns my license key. Then use the Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/mcp with the header "Authorization: Bearer <key>". Call read_report with report_id erudio-nct06367972 and sections ["all"], and summarize the findings for me with their sources. The full report is large (about 500 KB): save the response to a file and work from it rather than printing it. If you cannot, read sections ["narratives"] first, the executive summary and analysis.
When you tell me what clinicians said, give each view as theirs, with its source. Counts are the sources the report kept, not the share of clinicians who agree. Reports are not medical advice.
Keep the key private to my organization.Or read the record directly: JSON, Markdown or MCP
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/extend-op-nct06367972.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/extend-op-nct06367972.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "extend-op-06367972" })release 283729854d3e357ff13eeea697a0772d4e45a385f0fd9f58cd4167ed961ad6fa