The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer--the ROMIO (Randomized Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Effect of oesophagectomy on lipid profiles in patients with oesophageal cancer combined with hyperlipidaemia: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Surgery is widely regarded as a pivotal therapeutic approach for treating oesophageal cancer, and clinical observations have revealed that many oesophageal cancer patients also present with concomitant hyperlipidaemia. It is surprising that few studies have been performed to determine how blood lipid levels are affected by oesophageal cancer resection. This research was designed to assess the influence of oesophageal cancer resection on lipid profiles among individuals diagnosed with both oesophageal cancer and hyperlipidaemia.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was carried out on 110 patients with hyperlipidaemia and oesophageal cancer who had undergone oesophagectomy at the 900th Hospital of the Joint Logistics Support Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Preoperative and postoperative serological data were collected at seven-, thirty-, sixty-day-, and one-year-long intervals. Changes in lipid levels were compared, the remission of various types of hyperlipidaemia was statistically assessed, and Pearson correlation was used to analyse the association between lipid changes and preoperative body weight. The research sought to assess the reduction in body weight and the proportion of body weight lost one year following surgery.

RESULTS

Noteworthy decreases were observed in total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels, with TC decreasing from 6.20 mmol/L to 5.20 mmol/L, TG decreasing from 1.40 mmol/L to 1.20 mmol/L, and LDL decreasing from 4.50 mmol/L to 3.30 mmol/L. Conversely, there was a notable increase in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels, which increased from 1.20 mmol/L to 1.40 mmol/L (P < 0.05) compared to the preoperative levels. Notably, the remission rates for mixed hyperlipidaemia (60.9%) and high cholesterol (60.0%) were considerably greater than those for high triglycerides (16.2%). Alterations in TC at one year postoperatively correlated with preoperative weight and weight loss (r = 0.315, -0.216); changes in TG correlated with preoperative weight, percentage of total weight loss (TWL%), and weight reduction (r = -0.295, -0.246, 0.320); and changes in LDL correlated with preoperative weight, TWL%, and weight loss (r = 0.251, 0.186, and -0.207). Changes in non-high-density lipoprotein(non-HDL) were linked to preoperative weight (r = 0.300), and changes in TG/HDL were correlated with preoperative weight and TWL% (r = -0.424, -0.251).

CONCLUSIONS

Oesophagectomy significantly improved lipid profiles in oesophageal cancer patients, potentially leading to a reduction in overall cardiovascular risk.

Laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery with thoracotomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: ROMIO randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated if hybrid oesophagectomy with minimally invasive gastric mobilization and thoracotomy enabled faster recovery than open surgery.

METHODS

In eight UK centres, this pragmatic RCT recruited patients for oesophagectomy to treat localized cancer. Participants were randomly allocated to hybrid or open surgery, stratified by centre and receipt of neoadjuvant treatment. Large dressings aimed to mask patients to their allocation for six days post-surgery. The authors present the intention-to-treat analysis of outcome measures from the first 3 months post-randomization, including the primary outcome, the patient-reported physical function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30, and cost-effectiveness. Current Controlled Trials registration: ISRCTN 59036820 (feasibility study), 10386621 (definitive study).

FINDINGS

There was no evidence of a difference between hybrid (n = 267) and open (n = 266) surgery in average physical function over 3 months post-randomization: difference in means 2.1, 95% c.i. -2.0 to 6.2, P = 0.3. Complication rates were similar; for example, 88 (34%) participants in the open and 82 (32%) participants in the hybrid surgery groups experienced a pulmonary infection within 30 days. There was no evidence that hybrid surgery was more cost-effective than open surgery at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported physical function in the 3 months post-randomization provided no evidence of a difference in recovery time between hybrid and open surgery, or a difference in cost-effectiveness. Both approaches to surgery were completed safely, with a similar risk of key complications, suggesting that surgeons who have a preference for one of the two approaches need not change their practice.

Development of a Reliable Surgical Quality Assurance System for 2-stage Esophagectomy in Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to develop a reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy. This development was conducted during the pilot phase of the multicenter ROMIO trial, collaborating with international experts.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is evidence that the quality of surgical performance in randomized controlled trials influences clinical outcomes, quality of lymphadenectomy and loco-regional recurrence.

METHODS

Standardization of 2-stage esophagectomy was based on structured observations, semi-structured interviews, hierarchical task analysis, and a Delphi consensus process. This standardization provided the structure for the operation manual and video and photographic assessment tools. Reliability was examined using generalizability theory.

RESULTS

Hierarchical task analysis for 2-stage esophagectomy comprised fifty-four steps. Consensus (75%) agreement was reached on thirty-nine steps, whereas fifteen steps had a majority decision. An operation manual and record were created. A thirty five-item video assessment tool was developed that assessed the process (safety and efficiency) and quality of the end product (anatomy exposed and lymphadenectomy performed) of the operation. The quality of the end product section was used as a twenty seven-item photographic assessment tool. Thirty-one videos and fifty-three photographic series were submitted from the ROMIO pilot phase for assessment. The overall G-coefficient for the video assessment tool was 0.744, and for the photographic assessment tool was 0.700.

CONCLUSIONS

A reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy has been developed for surgical oncology randomized controlled trials.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

11/NW/0895 and confirmed locally as appropriate, 12/SW/0161, 16/SW/0098.Trial registration number: ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.

Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?

It has been said that "thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy", but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (p = 0.005) and CLIs (p = 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (p = 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects.

RESULTS

Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010).

CONCLUSION

MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques.

LAY SUMMARY

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Exploring the reporting standards of RCTs involving invasive procedures for assisted vaginal birth: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Assisted vaginal birth (AVB) is a complex intervention involving medical devices, comprising multiple components. This complexity creates difficulties when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in terms of describing, standardising and monitoring the intervention, and accounting for differing clinician expertise. This review examines the reporting standards of complex interventions involving a medical device, in the context of AVB RCTs.

STUDY DESIGN

Searches were undertaken from the start of indexing to March 2021, and limited to RCTs, feasibility and pilot studies including at least one device for AVB. RCTs were selected if they included participants having an AVB with any device, with or without a comparator group. Reporting details were assessed according to the Consolidating Standards of Reporting Trials extension for non-pharmacological treatments (CONSORT-NPT), focusing on intervention descriptions, standardization, adherence and clinician expertise. Screening of abstracts, full-text articles and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 4098 abstracts and 83 full-text articles, 39 papers were included, investigating 80 interventions. Twenty-seven different named devices were identified. Intervention descriptions were provided in 20 (55%) papers with varying levels of detail and with only one covering the entire procedure. Standardization of interventions was mentioned in 25 papers (64%). Only eight (21%) papers reported any form of adherence to the intended procedure. Some data regarding expertise were reported in 25 (64%) papers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some compliance with reporting standards, there is a lack of detail regarding intervention description, standardization, adherence and expertise in RCTs of AVB. This creates difficulties in understanding how intervention delivery was intended and what actually occurred. Clearer guidelines for the reporting of invasive procedures and devices are required.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open McKeown for Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (McKeown-MIE) offers advantages in short-term outcomes compared with McKeown open esophagectomy (McKeown-OE); however, debate as to whether MIE is equivalent or better than OE regarding survival outcomes is ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival between McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE in a large cohort of esophageal cancer (EC) patients.

METHODS

We used a prospective database (independently managed by LinkDoc company) of the Thoracic Surgery Department at Henan Cancer Hospital and included patients who underwent McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE for EC from 1 January 2015 to 6 January 2018. The perioperative data and overall survival (OS) rate in the two groups were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

We included 502 patients who underwent McKeown-MIE (n = 306) or McKeown-OE (n = 196) for EC. The median age in the total patient population was 63 years. All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. There was a significantly shorter mean operative time (269.76 min vs. 321.14 min, p < 0.001) in the OE group. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were 0, and there was no difference in 90-day mortality (p = 0.053) between the groups. The postoperative stay was shorter in the MIE group and was 14 days and 18 days in the MIE and OE groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The OS at 60 months was 58.8% and 41.6% in the MIE and OE groups, respectively (p < 0.001) [hazard ratio 1.783, 95% confidence interval 1.347-2.359].

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed that McKeown-MIE was associated with better long-term survival than McKeown-OE for patients with resectable EC.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus]

BACKGROUND

Thoracoabdominal esophagectomy still plays a major role in the oncological treatment for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive procedures were developed to reduce the high rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality without negatively affecting the oncological outcome.

OBJECTIVE

What evidence supports minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus? Do patients benefit from minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to an open approach? Is the reduction of surgical access trauma specifically advantageous?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature.

RESULTS

A reduction in postoperative morbidity by decreasing surgical trauma was confirmed by three prospective randomized clinical trials, while showing at least similar oncological outcomes. Diverse retrospective analyses and meta-analyses also came to the same result.

CONCLUSION

A minimization of surgical access trauma during thoracoabdominal esophagectomy reduces postoperative morbidity compared to conventional open surgery. Recent evidence suggests that oncological outcomes are not altered depending on the surgical approach.

A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery

BACKGROUND

With rapid advancement in the genomics of oesophagogastric (OG) cancer and raised expectations in clinical outcomes from patients and clinicians alike there is a clear need to determine the current research priorities in OG cancer surgery. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities among OG cancer surgeons in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high priority research questions. All questions submitted and subsequently ranked were analysed on an anonymised basis.

RESULTS

In total, 427 questions were submitted in phase I and 75 with an OG cancer focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Phase III produced a final list of 12 high priority questions with an emphasis on tailored or personalised treatment strategies in OG cancer surgery.

CONCLUSION

A modified Delphi process produced a list of 12 high priority research questions in OG cancer surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres.

Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy-a New Dawn of EsophagealSurgery

Surgery is the mainstay of esophageal cancer. However, esophagectomy is a major surgical trauma on a patient with high morbidity and mortality. The intent of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is to decrease the degree of surgical trauma and perioperative morbidity associated with open surgery, and provide faster recovery and shorter hospital stay with the equivalent oncological outcome. It also allows for lesser pulmonary morbidity, less blood loss, less pain, and a better quality of life. MIE is safe and effective but has a steep learning curve with high technical expertise. Recently, it is increasingly accepted and adopted all over the globe. In this article, we discuss the safety, efficacy, short-term, and oncological outcomes of thoracoscopic- and laparoscopic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and robotic surgery compared with open esophagectomy with a special focus on the Indian perspective.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical evidence and surgical techniques

Background

Surgical esophagectomy plays a crucial role in the curative and palliative treatment of esophageal cancer. Thereby, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly applied all over the world. Combining minimal invasiveness with improved possibilities for meticulous dissection, robot-assisted minimal invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been implemented in many centers.

Purpose

This review focuses on the development of MIE as well as RAMIE and their value based on evidence in current literature.

Conclusion

Although MIE and RAMIE are highly complex procedures, they can be performed safely with improved postoperative outcome and equal oncological results compared with open esophagectomy (OE). RAMIE offers additional advantages regarding surgical dissection, lymphadenectomy, and extended indications for advanced tumors.

Long-term oncological outcomes following completely minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy

Open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional cancers is associated with high morbidity. Completely minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) techniques have evolved over the last two decades and significantly reduce surgical trauma compared to open surgery. Despite this, long-term oncological outcomes following CMIE compared to OE remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare overall 5-year survival (OFS) and disease-free 5-year survival (DFFS) between CMIE and OE. It was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic literature search from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. The PROSPERO database was also searched for studies comparing OFS and DFFS between CMIE and OE. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality for included studies. Overall, seven studies (containing 949 patients: 527 OE and 422 CMIE) were identified from screening. On pooled meta-analysis, there was no significant difference in OFS or DFFS between CMIE and OE cohorts ([odds ratio 1.12; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.48; P = 0.41] and [odds ratio 1.34; 95% CI: 0.81-2.22; P = 0.25] respectively). Sensitivity and subgroup analysis with high-quality studies, three highest sample sized studies, and three most recent studies also revealed no difference in long-term oncological outcomes between the two operative groups. This review demonstrates long-term oncological outcomes following CMIE appear equivalent to OE based on amalgamation of existing published literature. Limited high-level evidence comparing OFS and DFFS between CMIE and OE exists. Further research with a randomized controlled trial is required to clinically validate these findings.

Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring Patient Treatment Preferences in an Oncology Trial Comparing Active Monitoring with Radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308)

INTRODUCTION

Providing balanced information that emphasizes clinical equipoise (i.e., uncertainty regarding the relative merits of trial interventions) and exploring patient treatment preferences can improve informed consent and trial recruitment. Within a trial comparing adjuvant radiotherapy versus active monitoring following surgical resection for an atypical meningioma (ROAM/EORTC-1308), we explored patterns in communication and reasons why health practitioners may find it challenging to convey equipoise and explore treatment preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative study embedded within ROAM/EORTC-1308. Data were collected on 40 patients and 18 practitioners from 13 U.K. sites, including audio recordings of 39 patients' trial consultations, 23 patient interviews, and 18 practitioner interviews. Qualitative analysis drew on argumentation theory.

RESULTS

Practitioners acknowledged the importance of the research question that the trial aimed to answer. However, they often demonstrated a lack of equipoise in consultations, particularly with eligible patients who practitioners believed to be susceptible to side effects (e.g., cognitive impairment) or inconvenienced by radiotherapy. Practitioners elicited but rarely explored patient treatment preferences, especially if a patient expressed an initial preference for active monitoring. Concerns about coercing patients, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints influenced communication in ways that were loaded against trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several challenges that practitioners face in conveying equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences in oncology, and particularly neuro-oncology, trials with distinct management pathways. The findings informed communication about ROAM/EORTC-1308 and will be relevant to enhancing trial communication in future oncology trials. Qualitative studies embedded within trials can address difficulties with communication, thus improving informed consent and recruitment. ROAM/EORTC-1308 RCT: ISRCTN71502099.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Oncology trials can be challenging to recruit to, especially those that compare treatment versus monitoring. Conveying clinical equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences can enhance recruitment and patient understanding. This study focused on the challenges that practitioners encounter in trying to use such communication strategies and how practitioners may inadvertently impede patient recruitment and informed decision making. This article provides recommendations to support practitioners in balancing the content and presentation of trial management pathways. The results can inform training to optimize communication, especially for neuro-oncology trials and trials comparing markedly different management pathways.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: past, present and future

Esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus is increasingly performed using minimally invasive techniques. After the introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the early 1990's, robotic-assisted techniques followed after the turn of the millennium. The advent of robotic platforms has allowed the development of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) over the past 15 years. Although recent trials have shown superior peri-operative morbidity and quality of life compared to open esophagectomy, no randomized trials have compared RAMIE to conventional MIE. This paper summarizes the current literature on RAMIE and provides an overview of expected future developments in robotic surgery.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10386621.

Aspirin as an adjuvant treatment for cancer: feasibility results from the Add-Aspirin randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Preclinical, epidemiological, and randomised data indicate that aspirin might prevent tumour development and metastasis, leading to reduced cancer mortality, particularly for gastro-oesophageal and colorectal cancer. Randomised trials evaluating aspirin use after primary radical therapy are ongoing. We present the pre-planned feasibility analysis of the run-in phase of the Add-Aspirin trial to address concerns about toxicity, particularly bleeding after radical treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

The Add-Aspirin protocol includes four phase 3 randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of daily aspirin on recurrence and survival after radical cancer therapy in four tumour cohorts: gastro-oesophageal, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. An open-label run-in phase (aspirin 100 mg daily for 8 weeks) precedes double-blind randomisation (for participants aged under 75 years, aspirin 300 mg, aspirin 100 mg, or matched placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; for patients aged 75 years or older, aspirin 100 mg or matched placebo in a 2:1 ratio). A preplanned analysis of feasibility, including recruitment rate, adherence, and toxicity was performed. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN74358648) and remains open to recruitment.

FINDINGS

After 2 years of recruitment (October, 2015, to October, 2017), 3494 participants were registered (115 in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort, 950 in the colorectal cancer cohort, 1675 in the breast cancer cohort, and 754 in the prostate cancer cohort); 2719 (85%) of 3194 participants who had finished the run-in period proceeded to randomisation, with rates consistent across tumour cohorts. End of run-in data were available for 2253 patients; 2148 (95%) of the participants took six or seven tablets per week. 11 (0·5%) of the 2253 participants reported grade 3 toxicity during the run-in period, with no upper gastrointestinal bleeding (any grade) in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicity overall was dyspepsia (246 [11%] of 2253 participants).

INTERPRETATION

Aspirin is well-tolerated after radical cancer therapy. Toxicity has been low and there is no evidence of a difference in adherence, acceptance of randomisation, or toxicity between the different cancer cohorts. Trial recruitment continues to determine whether aspirin could offer a potential low cost and well tolerated therapy to improve cancer outcomes.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, The MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

Comparison of Outcomes with Semi-mechanical and Circular Stapled Intrathoracic Esophagogastric Anastomosis following Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Several techniques have been described for esophagogastric anastomosis following esophagectomy. This study compared the outcomes of circular stapled anastomoses with semi-mechanical technique using a linear stapler.

METHODS

Perioperative data were extracted from a contemporaneously collected database of all consecutive esophagectomies for cancer with intrathoracic anastomoses performed in the Trent Oesophago-Gastric Unit between January 2015 and April 2018. Anastomotic techniques: circular stapled versus semi-mechanical, were evaluated and outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak rate. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic stricture, overall complication rates, length of stay (LOS) and 30 day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-nine consecutive esophagectomies with intrathoracic anastomosis were performed during the study period. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, Charlson comorbidity index and neoadjuvant therapies received. Circular stapled anastomoses were performed in 85 patients, while 74 patients received a semi-mechanical anastomosis. Clavien-Dindo complications II or more were higher in the circular stapled group (p = 0.02). There were 16 (10%) anastomotic leaks overall, three (4%) in semi-mechanical group versus 13 (15%) in the circular stapled group (p < 0.019). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of LOS, 30-day mortality or the need for endoscopic dilatation of the anastomosis at 3 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The move from a circular stapled to a semi-mechanical intrathoracic anastomosis has been associated with a reduced postoperative anastomotic leak rate following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

The evolution of fast track protocols after oesophagectomy

Fast track is a standardised goal directed patient's care pathway that aims to facilitate recovery following surgery. Currently, there are large variations in the fast track protocols used in oesophagectomy due to the complexity of the procedure. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the evolution of fast track protocols following oesophagectomy since its implementation and the resulting effect on postoperative outcomes. Relevant electronic databases were searched for studies assessing the clinical outcome from fast track in oesophagectomy and also those assessing the effects of the individual key components in fast track protocols. The search yielded twenty-three publications regarding fast track implementation in oesophagectomy. A pattern of consistent evolution in fast-track protocols was clearly demonstrated and these have shown variations in the core-identified components across the studies. However, evolution in fast track protocols over time showed, an overall improvement in length of stay, anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications and mortality over time. Thirty publications were included that evaluated specific components of fast track protocols, with an increasing trend towards addressing the nutritional aspect in oesophagectomy care in more recent years. The variations in the key components of fast track protocol of care identify the need for continued assessment and identification for areas of improvement. In the future incremental gains through focused improvements in key components will lend itself to even better postoperative outcomes and patient experience during oesophageal cancer treatment.

Hybrid esophagectomy

Esophagectomy is a complex surgical procedure associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity, mainly dominated by pulmonary complications. Minimally invasive approaches have been developed in order to decrease postoperative morbidity, including totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid esophagectomy in which one surgical step is achieved either by laparoscopy or thoracoscopy and the other step by open approach. In this review, we will discuss the main results of this hybrid approach in esophagectomy for cancer. Hybrid esophagectomy is associated with better postoperative outcomes compared to open approach, and similar outcomes compared to totally MIE, especially concerning pulmonary complications. For long-terms outcomes, hybrid approach showed similar, or even better, overall survival than open approach. With a short learning curve, hybrid esophagectomy with laparoscopic gastric mobilization will be the future gold standard for esophagectomy and should be further compared with totally MIE.

Protocol for developing quality assurance measures to use in surgical trials: an example from the ROMIO study

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are frequently criticised because surgeon expertise and standards of surgery are not considered or accounted for during study design. This is particularly true in pragmatic trials (which typically involve multiple centres and surgeons and are based in 'real world' settings), compared with explanatory trials (which are smaller and more tightly controlled).

OBJECTIVE

This protocol describes a process to develop and test quality assurance (QA) measures for use within a predominantly pragmatic surgical RCT comparing minimally invasive and open techniques for oesophageal cancer (the NIHR ROMIO study). It builds on methods initiated in the ROMIO pilot RCT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We have identified three distinct types of QA measure: (i) entry criteria for surgeons, through assessment of operative videos, (ii) standardisation of operative techniques (by establishing minimum key procedural phases) and (iii) monitoring of surgeons during the trial, using intraoperative photography to document key procedural phases and standardising the pathological assessment of specimens. The QA measures will be adapted from the pilot study and tested iteratively, and the video and photo assessment tools will be tested for reliability and validity.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained (NRES Committee South West-Frenchay, 25 April 2016, ref: 16/SW/0098). Results of the QA development study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.

The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation

Objective

To evaluate the impact of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) on recruitment in challenging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have applied the intervention. The QRI aims to understand recruitment difficulties and then implements “QRI actions” to address these as recruitment proceeds.

Study Design and Setting

A mixed-methods study, comprising (1) before-and-after comparisons of recruitment rates and the numbers of patients approached and (2) qualitative case studies, including documentary analysis and interviews with RCT investigators.

Results

Five UK-based publicly funded RCTs were included in the evaluation. All recruited to target. Randomized controlled trial 2 and RCT 5 both received up-front prerecruitment training before the intervention was applied. Randomized controlled trial 2 did not encounter recruitment issues and recruited above target from its outset. Recruitment difficulties, particularly communication issues, were identified and addressed through QRI actions in RCTs 1, 3, 4, and 5. Randomization rates significantly improved after QRI action in RCTs 1, 3, and 4. Quintet Recruitment Intervention actions addressed issues with approaching eligible patients in RCTs 3 and 5, which both saw significant increases in the number of patients approached. Trial investigators reported that the QRI had unearthed issues they had been unaware of and reportedly changed their practices after QRI action.

Conclusion

There is promising evidence to suggest that the QRI can support recruitment to difficult RCTs. This needs to be substantiated with future controlled evaluations.

The evolution of surgical approach for esophageal cancer

Esophageal surgery for esophageal cancer has been performed for over a century now. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was first described in 1992, and it is now a standard approach in many countries. However, MIE is technically difficult and requires a long learning curve. It takes >100 cases to train for MIE with gastric tube reconstruction with an intrathoracic anastomosis. A possible option to overcome several challenges of MIE might be the use of a robotic system. A robot-assisted MIE was first described in 2005, and long-term results have shown its feasibility and safety. Over the years, different approaches for esophagectomy have been established. Our review discusses these developments and recent literature on open, minimally invasive and robotic esophageal surgery.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Clinical Effectiveness Trials in Esophageal Cancer Resection Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Development of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical effectiveness trials in esophageal cancer resection surgery.

BACKGROUND

Inconsistency and heterogeneity in outcome reporting after esophageal cancer resection surgery hampers comparison of trial results and undermines evidence synthesis. COSs provide an evidence-based approach to these challenges.

METHODS

A long list of clinical and patient-reported outcomes was identified and categorized into outcome domains. Domains were operationalized into a questionnaire and patients and health professionals rated the importance of items from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important) in 2 Delphi survey rounds. Retained items were discussed at a consensus meeting and a final COS proposed. Professionals were surveyed to request endorsement of the COS.

RESULTS

A total of 68 outcome domains were identified and operationalized into a questionnaire; 116 (91%) of consenting patients and 72 (77%) of health professionals completed round 1. Round 2 response rates remained high (87% patients, 93% professionals). Rounds 1 and 2 prioritized 43 and 19 items, respectively. Retained items were discussed at a patient consensus meeting and a final 10-item COS proposed, endorsed by 61/67 (91%) professionals and including: overall survival; in-hospital mortality; inoperability; need for another operation; respiratory complications; conduit necrosis and anastomotic leak; severe nutritional problems; ability to eat/drink; problems with acid indigestion or heartburn; and overall quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The COS is recommended for all pragmatic clinical effectiveness trials in esophageal cancer resection surgery. Further work is needed to delineate the definitions and parameters and explore best methods for measuring the individual outcomes.

Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6-9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery.

OBJECTIVES

The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches.

DESIGN

Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work.

SETTING

Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited.

RESULTS

During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

[Differentiated surgical approach for adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction]

For adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) the classification of Siewert with its three subtypes is well established as a practical approach to surgical treatment. Transthoracic esophagectomy with gastric tube formation is generally accepted as the surgical standard for adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus (GEJ type I). Intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy has become the most frequently used anastomotic technique (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy). Both the abdominal and thoracic part can be safely performed with a minimally invasive access. For subcardiac gastric cancer (GEJ type III) transhiatal extended gastrectomy is the resection of choice. For true cardiac carcinomas (GEJ type II) it has not yet been decided which of the abovementioned surgical procedures offers the best long-term survival. If technically possible in terms of a complete resection, transhiatal extended gastrectomy should be preferred because of a better postoperative quality of life. For GEJ type II tumors a minimally invasive approach is not recommended if the extent of resection cannot be safely determined preoperatively.

Minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy: state of the art

Esophageal cancer is the eight most common cancer in the world and surgical resection remains the gold standard not only in providing the optimal chance for cure but also the best palliation for dysphagia. Esophagectomy is a complex operation and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality that are reported as 23-50% and 2-8% in western country. At the moment no gold standard techniques exist for esophagectomy. The choice of the technique depends on several factors; location of tumor and surgeon's experience are probably the most relevant. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), performed in high volume centers, has shown to reduce the rate of complications with the same oncological outcome as open esophagectomy. The addition of robotic technique to MIE is relatively new and is gaining widespread acceptance. Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is safe and feasible, and its short-term results are comparable to conventional MIE. Randomized studies are needed to assess if there is any real benefit associated to the use of the robotic approach.

A feasibility study investigating the acceptability and design of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of needle fasciotomy versus limited fasciectomy for the treatment of Dupuytren's contractures of the fingers (HAND-1): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dupuytren's contractures are fibrous cords under the skin of the palm of the hand. The contractures are painless but cause one or more fingers to curl into the palm, resulting in loss of function. Standard treatment within the NHS is surgery to remove (fasciectomy) or divide (fasciotomy) the contractures, and the treatment offered is frequently determined by surgeon preference. This study aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of needle fasciotomy versus limited fasciectomy for the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture.

METHODS/DESIGN

HAND-1 is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, randomised feasibility trial. Eligible patients aged 18 years or over who have one or more fingers with a Dupuytren's contracture of more than 30° in the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and/or proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints, well-defined cord(s) causing contracture, and have not undergone previous surgery for Dupuytren's on the same hand will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with either needle fasciotomy or limited fasciectomy. Participants will be followed-up for up to 6 months post surgery. Feasibility outcomes include number of patients screened, consented and randomised, adherence with treatment, completion of follow-up and identification of an appropriate patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to use as primary outcome for a main trial. Embedded qualitative research, incorporating a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention, will focus on understanding and optimising the recruitment process, and exploring patients' experiences of trial participation and the interventions.

DISCUSSION

This study will assess whether a large multicentre trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of needle fasciotomy and limited fasciectomy for the treatment of Dupuytren's contractures is feasible, and if so will provide data to inform its design and successful conduct.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number: ISRCTN11164292 . Registered on 28 August 2015.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophageal Resection: Three-year Follow-up of the Previously Reported Randomized Controlled Trial: the TIME Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate 3-year survival following a randomized controlled trial comparing minimally invasive with open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Research on minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has shown faster postoperative recovery and a marked decrease in pulmonary complications. Debate is ongoing as to whether the procedure is equivalent to open resection regarding oncologic outcomes. The study is a follow-up study of the TIME-trial (traditional invasive vs minimally invasive esophagectomy, a multicenter, randomized trial).

METHODS

Between June 2009 and March 2011, patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I), were randomized between open and MI esophagectomy with curative intent. Primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, lymph node yield, short-term morbidity, mortality, complications, radicality, local recurrence, and metastasis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR TC 2452. Both trial protocol and short-term results have been published previously.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients were included from 5 European hospitals and randomly assigned to open (n = 56) or MI esophagectomy (n = 59). Combined overall 3-year survival was 40.4% (SD 7.7%) in the open group versus 50.5% (SD 8%) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.207). The hazard ratio (HR) is 0.883 (0.540 to 1.441) for MIE compared with open surgery. Disease-free 3-year survival was 35.9% (SD 6.8%) in the open versus 40.2% (SD 6.9%) in the MI group [HR 0.691 (0.389 to 1.239).

CONCLUSIONS

The study presented here depicted no differences in disease-free and overall 3-year survival for open and MI esophagectomy. These results, together with short-term results, further support the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Current trends in multimodality treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer - Review article

PURPOSE

Multimodality treatment has now been widely introduced in the curatively intended treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. We aim to give an overview of the scientific evidence for the available treatment strategies and to describe which trends that are currently developing.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the scientific evidence for the different curatively intended treatment strategies that are available today. Relevant articles of randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and meta analyses were included.

RESULTS

After a systematic search of relevant papers we have included 64 articles in the review. The results show that adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction are two separate entities and should be analysed and studied as two different diseases. Neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgical resection is the gold standard of the curatively intended treatment today. There is no scientific evidence to support the use of chemoradiotherapy over chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. There is reasonable evidence to support definitive chemoradiotherapy as a treatment option for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for curatively intended treatments of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer is not very strong. Several on-going trials have the potential to change the gold standard treatments of today.

Dancing for Parkinson Disease: A Randomized Trial of Irish Set Dancing Compared With Usual Care

OBJECTIVE

To examine the feasibility of a randomized controlled study design and to explore the benefits of a set dancing intervention compared with usual care.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled design, with participants randomized to Irish set dance classes or a usual care group.

SETTING

Community based.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals with idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD) (N=90).

INTERVENTIONS

The dance group attended a 1.5-hour dancing class each week for 10 weeks and undertook a home dance program for 20 minutes, 3 times per week. The usual care group continued with their usual care and daily activities.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was feasibility, determined by recruitment rates, success of randomization and allocation procedures, attrition, adherence, safety, willingness of participants to be randomized, resource availability, and cost. Secondary outcomes were motor function (motor section of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale), quality of life (Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39), functional endurance (6-min walk test), and balance (mini-BESTest).

RESULTS

Ninety participants were randomized (45 per group). There were no adverse effects or resource constraints. Although adherence to the dancing program was 93.5%, there was >40% attrition in each group. Postintervention, the dance group had greater nonsignificant gains in quality of life than the usual care group. There was a meaningful deterioration in endurance in the usual care group. There were no meaningful changes in other outcomes. The exit questionnaire showed participants enjoyed the classes and would like to continue participation.

CONCLUSIONS

For people with mild to moderately severe PD, set dancing is feasible and enjoyable and may improve quality of life.

Delivering successful randomized controlled trials in surgery: Methods to optimize collaboration and study design

Randomized controlled trials in surgery are notoriously difficult to design and conduct due to numerous methodological and cultural challenges. Over the last 5 years, several UK-based surgical trial-related initiatives have been funded to address these issues. These include the development of Surgical Trials Centers and Surgical Specialty Leads (individual surgeons responsible for championing randomized controlled trials in their specialist fields), both funded by the Royal College of Surgeons of England; networks of research-active surgeons in training; and investment in methodological research relating to surgical randomized controlled trials (to address issues such as recruitment, blinding, and the selection and standardization of interventions). This article discusses these initiatives more in detail and provides exemplar cases to illustrate how the methodological challenges have been tackled. The initiatives have surpassed expectations, resulting in a renaissance in surgical research throughout the United Kingdom, such that the number of patients entering surgical randomized controlled trials has doubled.

Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs. open esophagectomy: a matched case analysis in 120 patients

PURPOSE

In esophageal surgery, total minimally invasive techniques compete with hybrid and robot-assisted procedures. The benefit of the individual techniques for the patient remains vague. At our institution, the hybrid minimally invasive laparoscopic-thoracotomic esophagectomy (HMIE) has been routinely applied since 2013. We conducted this retrospective study to analyze the perioperative outcome.

METHODS

Since 2013, 60 patients were operated in HMIE technique for esophageal cancer. Each of these patients was paired according to the criteria of gender, BMI, age, tumor histology, pulmonary preexisting conditions, and a history of smoking with a patient treated by open esophagectomy (OE). Perioperative parameters were extracted from our prospectively maintained database and compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The HMIE and OE groups were homogeneous in terms of patient- and tumor-related data. There was no difference in lymph nodes harvested (22 vs. 20, p = 0.459) and R0-resection rate (95 vs. 93%, p = 0.500). The operation time for the HMIE was significantly shorter (329 vs. 407 min, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups with respect to surgical complications (37 vs. 37%, p = 0.575), but the patients undergoing hybrid technique showed more delayed gastric emptying (23 vs. 10%, p = 0.042). Pulmonary morbidity was significantly reduced after HMIE (20 vs. 42%, p = 0.009). This affected both the occurrence of pneumonia and pleural effusions. The difference in the overall complication rate was not significant (50 vs. 60%, p = 0.179), but life-threatening complications (Clavien/Dindo 4/5) were less frequent (2 vs. 12%, p = 0.031). Overall, there was significantly less need for transfusion after HMIE (18 vs. 50%, p < 0.001), and hospital (and IMC) stay was significantly shorter (14 (6) vs. 18 (7) days, p = 0.002 (0.003)). The multivariate analysis confirms the surgical procedure as an independent risk factor for the development of pulmonary complications (OR 3.2, p = 0.011). Furthermore, preexisting pulmonary conditions were identified as a risk factor (OR 3.6, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Our retrospective analysis shows that reduction of postoperative pulmonary morbidity, perioperative blood loss, and shortening of hospital stay can be achieved by HMIE. The procedure is safe, and the rate of surgical complications and oncological radicality is comparable to the conventional procedure.

Surgical timing after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer, analysis of technique (STARRCAT): results of a feasibility multi-centre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal time of rectal resection after long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains unclear. A feasibility study was undertaken for a multi-centre randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of the interval after chemoradiotherapy on the technical complexity of surgery.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer were randomized to either a 6- or 12-week interval between CRT and surgery between June 2012 and May 2014 (ISRCTN registration number: 88843062). For blinded technical complexity assessment, the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis technique was used to quantify technical errors enacted within video recordings of operations. Other measured outcomes included resection completeness, specimen quality, radiological down-staging, tumour cell density down-staging and surgeon-reported technical complexity.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were enrolled: 15 were randomized to 6 and 16-12 weeks across 7 centres. Fewer eligible patients were identified than had been predicted. Of 23 patients who underwent resection, mean 12.3 errors were observed per case at 6 weeks vs. 10.7 at 12 weeks (p = 0.401). Other measured outcomes were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of measurement of operative performance of rectal cancer surgery as an endpoint was confirmed in this exploratory study. Recruitment of sufficient numbers of patients represented a challenge, and a proportion of patients did not proceed to resection surgery. These results suggest that interval after CRT may not substantially impact upon surgical technical performance.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy using population-level data.

METHODS

Multivariable regression modeling was used to determine predictors associated with the use of minimally invasive approaches for patients in the National Cancer Data Base who underwent resection of middle and distal clinical T13N03M0 esophageal cancers from 2010 to 2012. Perioperative outcomes and 3-year survival were compared between propensity-matched groups of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or open esophagectomy (OE). A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of using robotic-assisted operations as part of the minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

Among 4,266 patients included, 1,308 (30.6%) underwent MIE. It was more likely to be used in patients treated at academic (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2-33.1) or comprehensive cancer facilities (adjusted OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 2.6-21.1). Compared with propensity-matched patients who underwent OE, patients who underwent MIE had significantly more lymph nodes examined (15 versus 13; p = 0.016) and shorter hospital lengths of stay (10 days versus 11 days; p = 0.046) but similar resection margin positivity, readmission, and 30-day mortality (all p > 0.05). Survival was similar between the matched groups at 3 years for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (p > 0.05). Compared with MIE without robotic assistance, use of a robotic approach was not associated with any significant differences in perioperative outcomes (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of minimally invasive techniques to perform esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with modestly improved perioperative outcomes without compromising survival.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy: keynote lecture

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) by thoracoscopy after neoadjuvant therapy results in significant short-term advantages such as a lower incidence of pulmonary infections and a better quality of life (QoL) with the same completeness of resection. After 1 year, a better QoL is still observed for MIE in comparison with the open approach, while having the same survival. Seven issues about implementation of MIE for cancer require discussion: (1) choice of the extension of esophageal resection and use of neoadjuvant therapy; (2) reasons to approach the esophageal cancer by MIE; (3) determining the best minimally invasive approach for gastro-esophageal junction cancers; (4) implementation of evidence-based MIE; (5) standardization of the surgical anatomy of the esophagus based on MIE; (6) future lines of research of MIE; and (7) learning process. In the time of imaging-integrated surgery it is clear that the MIE approach should be increasingly implemented in all centers worldwide having an adequate volume of patients and expertise.

Why do patients decline surgical trials? Findings from a qualitative interview study embedded in the Cancer Research UK BOLERO trial (Bladder cancer: Open versus Lapararoscopic or RObotic cystectomy)

BACKGROUND

Surgical trials have typically experienced recruitment difficulties when compared with other types of oncology trials. Qualitative studies have an important role to play in exploring reasons for low recruitment, although to date few such studies have been carried out that are embedded in surgical trials. The BOLERO trial (Bladder cancer: Open versus Lapararoscopic or RObotic cystectomy) is a study to determine the feasibility of randomisation to open versus laparoscopic access/robotic cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer. We describe the results of a qualitative study embedded within the clinical trial that explored why patients decline randomisation.

METHODS

Ten semi-structured interviews with patients who declined randomisation to the clinical trial, and two interviews with recruiting research nurses were conducted. Data were analysed for key themes.

RESULTS

The majority of patients declined the trial because they had preferences for a particular treatment arm, and in usual practice could choose which surgical method they would be given. In most cases the robotic option was preferred. Patients described an intuitive 'sense' that favoured the new technology and had carried out their own inquiries, including Internet research and talking with previous patients and friends and family with medical backgrounds. Medical histories and lifestyle considerations also shaped these personalised choices. Of importance too, however, were the messages patients perceived from their clinical encounters. Whilst some patients felt their surgeon favoured the robotic option, others interpreted 'indirect' cues such as the 'established' reputation of the surgeon and surgical method and comments made during clinical assessments. Many patients expressed a wish for greater direction from their surgeon when making these decisions.

CONCLUSION

For trials where the 'new technology' is available to patients, there will likely be difficulties with recruitment. Greater attention could be paid to how messages about treatment options and the trial are conveyed across the whole clinical setting. However, if it is too difficult to challenge such messages, then questions should be asked about whether genuine and convincing equipoise can be presented and perceived in such trials. This calls for consideration of whether alternative methods of generating evidence could be used when evaluating surgical techniques which are established and routinely available.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN38528926 (11 December 2008).

Open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy versus minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: protocol for a multicentre prospective, open and parallel, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cause of cancer worldwide. In 2009 in China, the incidence and death rate of oesophageal cancer was 22.14 per 100 000 person-years and 16.77 per 100 000 person-years, respectively, the highest in the world. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) was introduced into clinical practice with the aim of reducing the morbidity rate. The mechanisms of MIO may lie in minimising the reaction to surgical injury and inflammation. There are some randomised trials regarding minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy, with 100-850 subjects enrolled. To date, no large randomised controlled trial comparing minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy has been reported in China, where squamous cell carcinoma predominated over adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a 3 year multicentre, prospective, randomised, open and parallel controlled trial, which aims to compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic oesophagectomy to open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy for resectable oesophageal cancer. Group A patients receive MIO which involves thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and laparoscopic gastric mobilisation with cervical anastomosis. Group B patients receive the open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy which involves a right thoracotomy and laparotomy with cervical anastomosis. Primary endpoints include respiratory complications within 30 days after operation. The secondary endpoints include other postoperative complications, influences on pulmonary function, intraoperative data including blood loss, operative time, the number and location of lymph nodes dissected, and mortality in hospital, the length of hospital stay, total expenses in hospital, mortality within 30 days, survival rate after 2 years, postoperative pain, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Three hundred and twenty-four patients in each group will be needed and a total of 648 patients will finally be enrolled into the study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committees of all participating institutions. The findings of this trial will be disseminated to patients and through peer-reviewed publications and international presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02355249.

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) and open oesophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched up to January 2015 using keywords: esophageal cancer, MIE, OE, hybrid MIE. Randomized controlled trials or prospective studies comparing the efficacy of OE with MIE or hybrid MIE in oesophageal cancer patients were included. Sensitivity analysis and quality assessment were performed.

RESULTS

MIE required longer operation time (pooled standardized difference in means = 0.565; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.272, 0.858; P < 0.001) than OE, but resulted in less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower incidence of pneumonia and vocal cord palsy (P values ≤0.026). There was no difference between MIE and OE regarding lymph node yield (pooled standardized difference in means = 0.078; 95% CI = -0.111, 0.267; P = 0.419). Length of intensive care unit stay, in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were also similar (P values ≥0.419) in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding certain clinical outcomes, MIE may be more beneficial than OE.

Early outcome of thoracoscopic and hybrid esophagectomy: Propensity-matched comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic esophagectomy remains the current therapeutic standard for localized esophageal carcinoma. Minimally invasive surgery has proven at least equivalent to open surgery regarding the early outcomes, but only 1 randomized study has compared the thoracoscopic with the thoracotomy approach. The primary objective of this study was to assess the early outcome of the thoracoscopic prone esophagectomy (TPE) and the hybrid Ivor Lewis (HIL) esophagectomy in 2 concurrent patient cohorts.

METHODS

We compared the 1-year outcome of 3-stage TPE and 2-stage HIL done over the same time period in a single center. The propensity score matching method was used to reduce selection bias by creating 2 groups of patients similarly likely to receive a treatment on the basis of measured baseline characteristics. After generating propensity scores using the covariates of age, sex, body mass index, forced expiration volume at 1 second, Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histologic tumor type, tumor site, pTNM stage, and neoadjuvant therapy, 93 TPE patients were matched with 197 HIL patients using a 1:1 ratio and the nearest-neighbor score matching. Main outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Operative time was longer in TPE patients (P < .01). All postoperative outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, nodal harvest, R0 resection rate, and 1-year survival rates were similar in the 2 matched groups.

CONCLUSION

Both operative approaches are safe and effective; using 1 or the other depends on the tumor site, surgeon experience and preference, and patient expectations.

Interventions in randomised controlled trials in surgery: issues to consider during trial design

Until recently, insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that surgical interventions are complex. This complexity has several implications, including the way in which surgical interventions are described and delivered in trials. In order for surgeons to adopt trial findings, interventions need to be described in sufficient detail to enable accurate replication; however, it may be permissible to allow some aspects to be delivered according to local practice. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for general guidance on the design of surgical interventions in trial protocols and reports. Key issues to consider when designing surgical interventions include the identification of each surgical intervention and their components, who will deliver the interventions, and where and how the interventions will be standardised and monitored during the trial. The trial design (pragmatic and explanatory), comparator and stage of innovation may also influence the extent of detail required. Thoughtful consideration of surgical interventions in this way may help with the interpretation of trial results and the adoption of successful interventions into clinical practice.

Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Compared with open oesophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) proves to have benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. However, it is unknown whether MIO has superiority in reducing the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the effect of MIO vs. OE on the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Data Sources

Sources such as Medline (through December 31, 2014), Embase (through December 31, 2014), Wiley Online Library (through December 31, 2014), and the Cochrane Library (through December 31, 2014) were searched.

Study Selection

Data of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials related to MIO versus OE were included.

Interventions

Eligible studies were those that reported patients who underwent MIO procedure. The control group included patients undergoing conventional OE.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Fixed or random -effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) for quantification of associations. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by using Cochran’s Q and I² statistics.

Results

A total of 48 studies involving 14,311 cases of resectable oesophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIO had statistically reduced occurrence of IHM (OR=0.69, 95%CI =0.55 -0.86). Patients undergoing MIO also had significantly reduced incidence of pulmonary complications (PCs) (RR=0.73, 95%CI = 0.63-0.86), pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR=0.71, 95%CI= 0.51-0.99) and arrhythmia (OR=0.79, 95%CI = 0.68-0.92). Non-significant reductions were observed among the included studies in the occurrence of anastomotic leak (AL) (OR=0.93, 95%CI =0.78-1.11), or Gastric Tip Necrosis (GTN) (OR=0.89, 95%CI =0.54-1.49).

Limitation

Most of the included studies were non-randomized case-control studies, with a diversity of study designs, demographics of participants and surgical intervention.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has superiority over open oesophagectomy (OE) in terms of the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM) and should be the first-choice surgical procedure in esophageal surgery.