OLIGOMA
OLIGOMA asks whether adding radiotherapy to systemic therapy can delay progression without worsening quality of life in oligometastatic breast cancer. Clinicians in the sources reviewed for this edition differ over routine local treatment versus trial-only care. Enthusiasm for progression delay coexists with scrutiny of patient selection and evidence thresholds. The clinical role of SBRT and requirements for further confirmation remain unresolved.
- NCT04495309 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 28, 2026
- Standard
11 findings, and what sits behind each
01. Routine use versus trial-only care remains the consequential divide
12 statements · 10 passages · 8 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: First co-primary outcome measure is progression-free survival (PFS), The comparison, Design and conduct, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability.
02. Selection and earlier consolidation are proposed, not demonstrated, effect modifiers
24 statements · 26 passages · 6 sources · 10 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, The comparison, Primary endpoint: First co-primary outcome measure is progression-free survival (PFS), Design and conduct.
03. BR002 population and PET explanations were corrected or left open
30 statements · 27 passages · 6 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Safety and tolerability.
04. Biomarker enthusiasm is exploratory and contested
18 statements · 18 passages · 5 sources · 11 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
05. Systemic effectiveness and changing disease pace qualify the local-treatment question
17 statements · 15 passages · 4 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Safety and tolerability, Secondary endpoints.
06. Local-event definitions matter, but better local control would not automatically yield PFS benefit
40 statements · 35 passages · 5 sources · 10 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: First co-primary outcome measure is progression-free survival (PFS), Design and conduct.
07. Radioresistance remains a disputed hypothesis
20 statements · 22 passages · 1 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints.
08. The evidence dispute concerns inference, replication and cross-histology borrowing
54 statements · 59 passages · 8 sources · 13 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 5. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: First co-primary outcome measure is progression-free survival (PFS), The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
09. Progression delay, quality of life and rare cure are different objectives
13 statements · 10 passages · 8 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Primary endpoint: First co-primary outcome measure is progression-free survival (PFS), Primary endpoint: Second co-primary outcome measure is quality of life, The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
10. Equipoise and communication constrain evidence generation
10 statements · 11 passages · 5 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: First co-primary outcome measure is progression-free survival (PFS).
11. Guideline omission has a timing explanation, not a proven dismissal
12 statements · 13 passages · 2 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: 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 11
Routine use versus trial-only care remains the consequential divide
- statements
- 12
- passages
- 10
- sources
- 8
- named voices
- 8
What the statements areViews 8Questions and uncertainty 1Clinical experience 0Comparisons 1Restated results and context 2How passages are usedSupporting a statement 12Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 2
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 8 posts and articles
Draws on: Primary endpoint: First co-primary outcome measure is progression-free survival (PFS), The comparison, Design and conduct, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 12 statements cited to source and date, and the 8 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 OLIGOMA 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.
Which patients, if any, should be considered for SBRT now, and what additional evidence would change that threshold?
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- 33HCP commentary sources screened
- 25sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 44found in screened sources
- 41matched to verified clinician profiles
- 42voices cited in the report
Also in the sources: 3 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 238verified statements, each linked to its source
- 104of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 11findings
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 (Standard) is set by the 238 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 | 11 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 12 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 238 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 15 | Free |
| Sources with links | 25 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 42 | Paid |
Trial aspects
15 discussed · 0 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: First co-primary outcome measure is progression-free survival (PFS) | 15 | 12 |
| Primary endpoint: Second co-primary outcome measure is quality of life | 2 | 2 |
| Secondary endpoints | 4 | 3 |
| Population and setting | 16 | 6 |
| The comparison | 12 | 7 |
| Safety and tolerability | 6 | 6 |
| Design and conduct | 12 | 6 |
| Initial versus induced oligometastases and evolving BR002 interpretations | 23 | 5 |
| Imaging sensitivity, eligibility and German PET access | 7 | 3 |
| CTC and ctDNA selection: predictive hypotheses versus subgroup skepticism | 17 | 5 |
| Treated-area progression, dose and cross-study local-control comparisons | 34 | 4 |
| Radiation response, pathological viability and clinical failure | 20 | 1 |
| Evidence thresholds, replication and histology-aware pooling | 55 | 8 |
| Systemic control, longitudinal disease pace and repeat SABR | 22 | 4 |
| Guideline timing, interpretation and specialty involvement | 12 | 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 | 27 | 22 | |
| Bluesky threads | 5 | 1 | |
| YouTube | 1 | 1 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Publications | not screened | 1 | |
max 21 / quarter
- Screened window
- Apr 10, 2021 → Oct 27, 2026
- Cited window
- Apr 10, 2021 → Oct 21, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 28, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- Effectiveness and Tolerability of Metastases-directed Radiotherapy in Addition to Standard Systemic Therapy in Patients With Oligometastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Multinational and Multicenter Clinical Trial
- Registry
- NCT04495309
- Study IDs
- ARO-2015-1
- Sponsor
- University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein
- Design
- Not applicable · Interventional, randomized, parallel
- Status
- Completed
- Enrollment
- 87 actual
- Start
- 2021-03-05 actual
- Primary completion
- 2025-06-03 actual
- Primary endpoint
- First co-primary outcome measure is progression-free survival (PFS)
- Interventions
- 1 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.
- The source search did not run to completion, so some matching discussion may be missing.
- 1 matching source (1 X thread) could not be read and is not included.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on disease differences and imaging limitations when interpreting metastasis-directed therapy evidence across cancers.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on investigating and quantifying potential survival or cure benefits of metastases-directed treatment.
- 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.
- 35 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: discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be incomplete; some discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be missing; sources about other trials are not included.
- Public posts and one historical interview do not establish how widely any position is shared. Reposts and repeated quotations are not additional independent opinions.
- The reviewed OLIGOMA outcomes discussion is conference-based. No primary outcomes publication is available here, and comments differ slightly in reported medians and confidence-limit rounding. These differences should not be silently combined into one verified results account.
- Speakers describe a small study stopped early for slow recruitment and a largely low-burden, earlier-line population. Enthusiasm should not be generalized to every patient eligible under the broader protocol.
- Short-term quality-of-life reports and general confidence in oligoSBRT safety do not establish formal quality-of-life non-inferiority, comprehensive graded toxicity, late effects or patient-satisfaction outcomes.
- The comments do not independently settle BR002's disputed initial-burden interpretation, characterize all treated-area events, or validate CTC/ctDNA selection thresholds. These remain open questions rather than established explanations for trial differences.
- A follow-up qualification in the survival-or-cure discussion was not available in full, limiting completeness of that exchange.
- Several contributors' clinical roles are not established in the reviewed material, and account-level or organizational commentary cannot be assumed to represent an identifiable individual clinician.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeLast checked for new commentary Oct 28, 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. OLIGOMA (NCT04495309): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 28, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/oligoma-nct04495309
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 "OLIGOMA" (NCT04495309), 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 "oligoma-04495309". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/oligoma-nct04495309.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 "NCT04495309", 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-nct04495309 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/oligoma-nct04495309.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/oligoma-nct04495309.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "oligoma-04495309" })release a6cef63dfa2fc12476779e29dd691945c1ea4028fec0cade6d60c79618ae2ceb