The IR Evolution in Oncology: Tools, Treatments, and Guidelines

Early focus of interventional oncologists was developing tools and imaging guidance, performing “procedures” acting as a skillful technician without knowledge of clinical patient outcomes, beyond post-treatment image findings. Interventional oncologists must deliver “treatments” and not “procedures”, and focus on clinically relevant outcomes, provide clinical continuity of care, which means stand at multidisciplinary tumor boards, see patients in consultation before treatment and for follow-up. Interventional oncologists have fought for the same “market” with surgery in a head to head, bloody competition called red ocean strategy in marketing terms, resulting in many aborted trials. Wide adoption of interventional oncology is facing the challenge to build evidence with overall survival as endpoint in randomized trials while the benefits of a treatment on overall survival are diluted by the effects of possible/inevitable subsequent therapies. Because interventional oncology is a disruptive force in medicine achieving same results as others (surgery) using different, less invasive approaches, patients where surgery is irrelevant can be target with a blue ocean strategy (to propose treatment where there is no competition). Recently interventional oncology has been included in the ESMO guidelines for colorectal cancer with oligometastatic disease with both surgical resection, and thermal ablation classified in the same category called “local ablative treatments”. Interventional oncologists have to shape the future by publications in oncologic journal, by being active members of oncology scientific societies, and use modern public megaphone (blog, video sharing, …) to disseminate information and let society know that interventional is not a me-too product but a disruptive treatment.