Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,159

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Outcomes of Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: The ORIOLE Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Phillips, Ryan, Shi, William Yue, Deek, Matthew, Radwan, Noura, Lim, Su Jin, Antonarakis, Emmanuel S., Rowe, Steven P., Ross, Ashley E., Gorin, Michael A., Deville, Curtiland, Greco, Stephen C., Wang, Hailun, Denmeade, Samuel R., Paller, Channing J., Dipasquale, Shirl, DeWeese, Theodore L., Song, Daniel Y., Wang, Hao, Carducci, Michael A., Pienta, Kenneth J., Pomper, Martin G., Dicker, Adam P., Eisenberger, Mario A., Alizadeh, Ash A., Diehn, Maximilian, Tran, Phuoc T.·2020·JAMA Oncology

Abstract

Importance: Complete metastatic ablation of oligometastatic prostate cancer may provide an alternative to early initiation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Objective: To determine if stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) improves oncologic outcomes in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer (ORIOLE) phase 2 randomized study accrued participants from 3 US radiation treatment facilities affiliated with a university hospital from May 2016 to March 2018 with a data cutoff date of May 20, 2019, for analysis. Of 80 men screened, 54 men with recurrent hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and 1 to 3 metastases detectable by conventional imaging who had not received ADT within 6 months of enrollment or 3 or more years total were randomized. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive SABR or observation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was progression at 6 months by prostate-specific antigen level increase, progression detected by conventional imaging, symptomatic progression, ADT initiation for any reason, or death. Predefined secondary outcomes were toxic effects of SABR, local control at 6 months with SABR, progression-free survival, Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form)-measured quality of life, and concordance between conventional imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted positron emission tomography in the identification of metastatic disease. Results: In the 54 men randomized, the median (range) age was 68 (61-70) years for patients allocated to SABR and 68 (64-76) years for those allocated to observation. Progression at 6 months occurred in 7 of 36 patients (19%) receiving SABR and 11 of 18 patients (61%) undergoing observation (P = .005). Treatment with SABR improved median progression-free survival (not reached vs 5.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.81; P = .002). Total consolidation of PSMA radiotracer-avid disease decreased the risk of new lesions at 6 months (16% vs 63%; P = .006). No toxic effects of grade 3 or greater were observed. T-cell receptor sequencing identified significant increased clonotypic expansion following SABR and correlation between baseline clonality and progression with SABR only (0.082085 vs 0.026051; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with SABR for oligometastatic prostate cancer improved outcomes and was enhanced by total consolidation of disease identified by PSMA-targeted positron emission tomography. SABR induced a systemic immune response, and baseline immune phenotype and tumor mutation status may predict the benefit from SABR. These results underline the importance of prospective randomized investigation of the oligometastatic state with integrated imaging and biological correlates. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02680587.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0147

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

See all 1,159

Metadata

Authors
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., Greco, S. C., Wang, H., Denmeade, S. R., Paller, C. J., Dipasquale, S., DeWeese, T. L., Song, D. Y., Wang, H., Carducci, M. A., Pienta, K. J., Pomper, M. G., Dicker, A. P., Eisenberger, M. A., Alizadeh, A. A., Diehn, M., & Tran, P. T.
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Published
2020-05-01
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
650
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3013251573
Cited by
1,159
References
32
FWCI
82.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Outcomes of Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: The ORIOLE Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0147
The paper
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., Greco, S. C., Wang, H., Denmeade, S. R., Paller, C. J., Dipasquale, S., DeWeese, T. L., Song, D. Y., Wang, H., Carducci, M. A., . . . Tran, P. T. (2020). Outcomes of Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: The ORIOLE Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0147

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.