1
|
Light A, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra AV, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore CM, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial. Eur Urol 2024; 85:35-46. [PMID: 37778954 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2023] [Revised: 08/01/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita V Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Naderi N, Mosahebi A, Williams NR. Microorganisms and Breast Cancer: An In-Depth Analysis of Clinical Studies. Pathogens 2023; 13:6. [PMID: 38276152 PMCID: PMC10819802 DOI: 10.3390/pathogens13010006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2023] [Revised: 11/24/2023] [Accepted: 12/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2024] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer is a multifactorial disease that affects millions of women worldwide. Recent work has shown intriguing connections between microorganisms and breast cancer, which might have implications for prevention and treatment. This article analyzed 117 relevant breast cancer clinical studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov selected using a bespoke set of 38 search terms focused on bacteria, viruses, and fungi. This was supplemented with 20 studies found from a search of PubMed. The resulting 137 studies were described by their characteristics such as geographic distribution, interventions used, start date and status, etc. The studies were then collated into thematic groups for a descriptive analysis to identify knowledge gaps and emerging trends.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naghmeh Naderi
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London NW3 2QG, UK; (N.N.); (A.M.)
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London W1W 7TY, UK
| | - Afshin Mosahebi
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London NW3 2QG, UK; (N.N.); (A.M.)
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London W1W 7TY, UK
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London W1W 7TY, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Banerjee SM, Acedo P, El Sheikh S, Harati R, Meecham A, Williams NR, Gerard G, Keshtgar MRS, MacRobert AJ, Hamoudi R. Combination of verteporfin-photodynamic therapy with 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine enhances the anti-tumour immune response in triple negative breast cancer. Front Immunol 2023; 14:1188087. [PMID: 38022682 PMCID: PMC10664979 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1188087] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 09/27/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a subtype of breast cancer characterised by its high tumourigenic, invasive, and immunosuppressive nature. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a focal therapy that uses light to activate a photosensitizing agent and induce a cytotoxic effect. 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine (5-ADC) is a clinically approved immunomodulatory chemotherapy agent. The mechanism of the combination therapy using PDT and 5-ADC in evoking an anti-tumour response is not fully understood. Methods The present study examined whether a single dose of 5-ADC enhances the cytotoxic and anti-tumour immune effect of low dose PDT with verteporfin as the photosensitiser in a TNBC orthotopic syngeneic murine model, using the triple negative murine mammary tumour cell line 4T1. Histopathology analysis, digital pathology and immunohistochemistry of treated tumours and distant sites were assessed. Flow cytometry of splenic and breast tissue was used to identify T cell populations. Bioinformatics were used to identify tumour immune microenvironments related to TNBC patients. Results Functional experiments showed that PDT was most effective when used in combination with 5-ADC to optimize its efficacy. 5-ADC/PDT combination therapy elicited a synergistic effect in vitro and was significantly more cytotoxic than monotherapies on 4T1 tumour cells. For tumour therapy, all types of treatments demonstrated histopathologically defined margins of necrosis, increased T cell expression in the spleen with absence of metastases or distant tissue destruction. Flow cytometry and digital pathology results showed significant increases in CD8 expressing cells with all treatments, whereas only the 5-ADC/PDT combination therapy showed increase in CD4 expression. Bioinformatics analysis of in silico publicly available TNBC data identified BCL3 and BCL2 as well as the following anti-tumour immune response biomarkers as significantly altered in TNBC compared to other breast cancer subtypes: GZMA, PRF1, CXCL1, CCL2, CCL4, and CCL5. Interestingly, molecular biomarker assays showed increase in anti-tumour response genes after treatment. The results showed concomitant increase in BCL3, with decrease in BCL2 expression in TNBC treatment. In addition, the treatments showed decrease in PRF1, CCL2, CCL4, and CCL5 genes with 5-ADC and 5-ADC/PDT treatment in both spleen and breast tissue, with the latter showing the most decrease. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first study that shows which of the innate and adaptive immune biomarkers are activated during PDT related treatment of the TNBC 4T1 mouse models. The results also indicate that some of the immune response biomarkers can be used to monitor the effectiveness of PDT treatment in TNBC murine model warranting further investigation in human subjects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shramana M. Banerjee
- Breast Unit, Royal Free London National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Pilar Acedo
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
- Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Soha El Sheikh
- University College London (UCL) Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Rania Harati
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmacotherapeutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
| | - Amelia Meecham
- University College London (UCL) Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Gareth Gerard
- University College London (UCL) Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mohammed R. S. Keshtgar
- Breast Unit, Royal Free London National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alexander J. MacRobert
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Rifat Hamoudi
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
- Research Institute for Medical and Health Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Light A, Peters M, Reddy D, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra AV, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore C, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2023; 132:520-530. [PMID: 37385981 PMCID: PMC10615865 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Max Peters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Deepika Reddy
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Department of Oncology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
- Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G. Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita V. Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Hashim U. Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Taimur T. Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ahmed A, Williams NR. Clinical Trials and Therapeutic Approaches for Healthcare Challenges in Pakistan. J Pers Med 2023; 13:1559. [PMID: 38003874 PMCID: PMC10672309 DOI: 10.3390/jpm13111559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2023] [Revised: 10/23/2023] [Accepted: 10/27/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Pakistan faces tremendous challenges in providing healthcare due to a lack of consistent policymaking, increasing expenditure and exponential growth in population since its inception in 1947. These challenges are not just driven by politics, policy and allocation of resources but also by healthcare, environment and characteristics of the population biology. Clinical trials provide the best way to find population-specific, cost-effective treatments that do not merely mimic those used in wealthier nations. This article analyzes all clinical studies conducted with at least one site in Pakistan listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, combined with a short overview that considers new therapeutic approaches that can be investigated in future clinical trials. Therapies using repurposed medicines are of particular interest as they use affordable drugs that are already widely available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aamir Ahmed
- ONCOLODYNE Ltd., 71–75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9JQ, UK
- Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6JJ, UK;
| | - Norman R. Williams
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43–45 Foley Street, London W1W 7TY, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Khetrapal P, Bains PS, Jubber I, Ambler G, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Sridhar A, Ta A, Kelly JD, Catto JWF. Digital Tracking of Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: Daily Step Counts Before and After Surgery Within the iROC Randomised Controlled Trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2023:S2588-9311(23)00213-4. [PMID: 37852921 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.09.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2023] [Revised: 09/11/2023] [Accepted: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 10/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Efforts to improve recovery after radical cystectomy (RC) are needed. OBJECTIVE To investigate wrist-worn wearable activity trackers in RC participants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An observational cohort study was conducted within the iROC randomised trial. INTERVENTION Patients undergoing RC at nine cancer centres wore wrist-based trackers for 7 days (d) at intervals before and after surgery. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Step counts were compared with participant and operative features, and recovery outcomes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 308 participants, 284 (92.2%) returned digital activity data at baseline (median 17 d [interquartile range: 8-32] before RC), and postoperatively (5 [5-6] d) and at weeks 5 (43 [38-43] d), 12 (94 [87-106] d), and 26 (192 [181-205] d) after RC. Compliance was affected by the time from surgery and a coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic lockdown (return rates fell to 0-7%, chi-square p < 0.001). Step counts dropped after surgery (mean of 28% of baseline), before recovering at 5 weeks (wk) (71% of baseline) and 12 wk (95% of baseline; all analysis of variance [ANOVA] p < 0.001). Baseline step counts were not associated with postoperative recovery or death. Patients with extended hospital stays had reduced postoperative step counts, with a difference of 2.2 d (95% confidence interval: 0.856-3.482 d) between the lowest third and highest two-third tertiles (linear regression analysis; p < 0.001). Additionally, they spent less time out of the hospital within 90 d of RC (80.3 vs 74.3 d, p = 0.013). Lower step counts at 5, 12, and 26 wk were seen in those seeking medical help and needing readmission (ANOVA p ≤ 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Baseline step counts were not associated with recovery. Lower postoperative step counts were associated with longer length of stay at the hospital and postdischarge readmissions. Studies are required to determine whether low step counts can identify patients at a risk of developing complications. PATIENT SUMMARY Postoperative step counts appear to be a promising tool to identify patients in the community needing medical help or readmission. More work is needed to understand which measures are most useful and how best to collect these.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pramit Khetrapal
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Parasdeep S Bains
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Ibrahim Jubber
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; Department of Urology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Gareth Ambler
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical & Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- UCL Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ashwin Sridhar
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Anthony Ta
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - John D Kelly
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - James W F Catto
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; Department of Urology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kanapathy M, Faderani R, Bray J, Dehbi HM, Panca M, Vindrola-Padros C, Prasad A, Burr N, Williams NR, Al-Ajam Y, Bhat W, Wong J, Mosahebi A, Nikkhah D. WAFER trial: a study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing wide-awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) to general and regional anaesthesia with tourniquet for flexor tendon repair. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e075440. [PMID: 37640464 PMCID: PMC10462963 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075440] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2023] [Accepted: 07/26/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Flexor tendons are traditionally repaired under either general anaesthesia (GA) or regional anaesthesia (RA), allowing for the use of an arm tourniquet to minimise blood loss and establish a bloodless surgical field. However, the use of tourniquets exposes the patient to certain risks, including skin, muscle and nerve injuries. A recent advancement in anaesthesia delivery involves the use of a wide-awake approach where no sedation nor tourniquets are used (wide-awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT)). WALANT uses local anaesthetic with epinephrine to provide pain relief and vasoconstriction, reducing operative bleeding. Several studies revealed potential benefits for WALANT compared with GA or RA. However, there remains a paucity of high-quality evidence to support the use of WALANT. As a result of this uncertainty, the clinical practice varies considerably. We aim to evaluate the feasibility of WALANT as an alternative to GA and RA in patients undergoing surgical repair of flexor tendon injuries. This involves addressing factors such as clinician and patient support for a trial, clinical equipoise, trial recruitment and dropout and the most relevant outcomes measures for a future definitive trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS WAFER is a multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of WALANT versus RA and GA. The target population is patients with acute traumatic flexor tendon injuries, across 3 major hand surgery units in England involving a total of 60 participants. Outcome assessors will be blinded. The primary outcome will be the ability to recruit patients into the trial, while secondary outcomes include difference in functional outcome, patient-reported outcome measures, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and complication rates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval was obtained from the London-City and East Research Ethics Committee (22/PR/1197). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conferences, patient information websites and social media networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN identifier: 15052559.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Muholan Kanapathy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, UK
| | - Ryan Faderani
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, UK
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Juliette Bray
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, UK
| | - Hakim-Moulay Dehbi
- University College London Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - Monica Panca
- Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Anjana Prasad
- Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, UK
| | - Nicola Burr
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Yazan Al-Ajam
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, UK
| | - Waseem Bhat
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Jason Wong
- Blond McIndoe Laboratories, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Afshin Mosahebi
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, UK
| | - Dariush Nikkhah
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, UK
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Williams NR. Analysis of Clinical Trials and Review of Recent Advances in Therapy Decisions for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer. J Pers Med 2023; 13:938. [PMID: 37373928 DOI: 10.3390/jpm13060938] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2023] [Revised: 05/29/2023] [Accepted: 05/30/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite the implementation of screening and early detection in many countries, the prostate cancer mortality rate remains high, particularly when the cancer is locally advanced. Targeted therapies with high efficacy and minimal harms should be particularly beneficial in this group, and several new approaches show promise. This article briefly analyses relevant clinical studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, combined with a short literature review that considers new therapeutic approaches that can be investigated in future clinical trials. Therapies using gold nanoparticles are of special interest in low-resource settings as they can localize and enhance the cancer-cell killing potential of X-rays using equipment that is already widely available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Norman R Williams
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London W1W 7TY, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Dixon S, Hill H, Flight L, Khetrapal P, Ambler G, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Kelly JD, Catto JWF. Cost-Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy vs Open Radical Cystectomy for Patients With Bladder Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6:e2317255. [PMID: 37389878 PMCID: PMC10314306 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.17255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2023] [Accepted: 04/21/2023] [Indexed: 07/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance The value to payers of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) when compared with open radical cystectomy (ORC) for patients with bladder cancer is unclear. Objectives To compare the cost-effectiveness of iRARC with that of ORC. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation used individual patient data from a randomized clinical trial at 9 surgical centers in the United Kingdom. Patients with nonmetastatic bladder cancer were recruited from March 20, 2017, to January 29, 2020. The analysis used a health service perspective and a 90-day time horizon, with supplementary analyses exploring patient benefits up to 1 year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Data were analyzed from January 13, 2022, to March 10, 2023. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive either iRARC (n = 169) or ORC (n = 169). Main Outcomes and Measures Costs of surgery were calculated using surgery timings and equipment costs, with other hospital data based on counts of activity. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated from European Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level instrument responses. Prespecified subgroup analyses were undertaken based on patient characteristics and type of diversion. Results A total of 305 patients with available outcome data were included in the analysis, with a mean (SD) age of 68.3 (8.1) years, and of whom 241 (79.0%) were men. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy was associated with statistically significant reductions in admissions to intensive therapy (6.35% [95% CI, 0.42%-12.28%]), and readmissions to hospital (14.56% [95% CI, 5.00%-24.11%]), but increases in theater time (31.35 [95% CI, 13.67-49.02] minutes). The additional cost of iRARC per patient was £1124 (95% CI, -£576 to £2824 [US $1622 (95% CI, -$831 to $4075)]) with an associated gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.01124 (95% CI, 0.00391-0.01857). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £100 008 (US $144 312) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy had a much higher probability of being cost-effective for subgroups defined by age, tumor stage, and performance status. Conclusions and Relevance In this economic evaluation of surgery for patients with bladder cancer, iRARC reduced short-term morbidity and some associated costs. While the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio was in excess of thresholds used by many publicly funded health systems, patient subgroups were identified for which iRARC had a high probability of being cost-effective. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03049410.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Dixon
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
- PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost Effective Lessons for System Strengthening South Africa), School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Harry Hill
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
| | - Laura Flight
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
- National Institute for Health Care Excellence, Manchester, England
| | - Pramit Khetrapal
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Gareth Ambler
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Surgical & Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, England
| | - John D. Kelly
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - James W. F. Catto
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
- Department of Urology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Treasure T, Macbeth F, Williams NR. Letter to the editor in response to Andreas Gkikas et al: Preoperative prognostic factors for 5-year survival following pulmonary metastasectomy from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2023:7179794. [PMID: 37228033 DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezad211] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 05/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Shah TT, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Grierson J, Miah H, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Clemente J, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra A, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore CM, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU. Corrigendum to "Magnetic Resonance Imaging and targeted biopsies compared to transperineal mapping biopsies prior to salvage focal therapy/ablation in localised and metastatic recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Primary Outcomes from the FORECAST Trial" [Eur Urol 2022;81(6):598-605]. Eur Urol 2023; 83:e117-e118. [PMID: 36681537 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Hospital, Maidstone, UK; School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK; High Dimensional Neurology, Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jack Grierson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Haroon Miah
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK; Urology Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Joey Clemente
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London and University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London and University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Onal C, Sezen D, Oymak E, Bölükbasi Y, Spratt DE, Ward MC, Fasola CE, White RL, Bentzen SM, Khan AJ, Vicini F, Shah C, Vaidya JS, Bulsara M, Wenz F, Sperk E, Massarut S, Alvarado M, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Bernstein M, Holmes D, Vinante L, Pigorsch S, Lundgren S, Uhl V, Joseph D, Tobias JS. In Regard to Hammer et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:253-254. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2022] [Accepted: 10/03/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
|
13
|
Vaidya JS, Bulsara M, Wenz F, Sperk E, Massarut S, Alvarado M, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Bernstein M, Holmes D, Vinante L, Pigorsch S, Lundgren S, Uhl V, Joseph D, Tobias JS. The TARGIT-A Randomized Trial: TARGIT-IORT Versus Whole Breast Radiation Therapy: Long-Term Local Control and Survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:77-82. [PMID: 35998867 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.08.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2022] [Revised: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 08/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jayant S Vaidya
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Max Bulsara
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Biostatistics, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, WA, Australia
| | - Frederik Wenz
- University Medical Centre Freiburg, University of Frieberg, Frieberg, Germany
| | - Elena Sperk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Samuele Massarut
- Department of Surgery, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Michael Alvarado
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | | | | | | | - Dennis Holmes
- University of Southern California, John Wayne Cancer Institute & Helen Rey Breast Cancer Foundation, Los Angeles, California
| | - Lorenzo Vinante
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Steffi Pigorsch
- Department of RadioOncology and Radiotherapy, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Steinar Lundgren
- Department of Oncology, St Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Valery Uhl
- Radiation Oncology, Summit Medical Center, Oakland, California
| | - David Joseph
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Jeffrey S Tobias
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Catto JWF, Khetrapal P, Ambler G, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Kelly JD. Reply to Andreas Skolarikos's Words of Wisdom re: Effect of Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion vs Open Radical Cystectomy on 90-Day Morbidity and Mortality Among Patients with Bladder Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur Urol. In press. Eur Urol 2022; 82:e139-e140. [PMID: 35945082 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.07.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2022] [Accepted: 07/25/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- James W F Catto
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK; Department of Urology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Pramit Khetrapal
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Gareth Ambler
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - John D Kelly
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Catto JWF, Khetrapal P, Ambler G, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Kelly JD. Reply to Bernardo Rocco and Maria Chiara Sighinolfi's Letter to the Editor re: James W.F. Catto, Pramit Khetrapal, Federico Ricciardi, et al. Effect of Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion vs Open Radical Cystectomy on 90-Day Morbidity and Mortality Among Patients with Bladder Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2022;327:2092-103: Lacking the Evidence for Neobladder Use After Radical Cystectomy. Eur Urol 2022; 82:e167-e168. [PMID: 36114078 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.08.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2022] [Accepted: 08/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- James W F Catto
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; Department of Urology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Pramit Khetrapal
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Gareth Ambler
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical & Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - John D Kelly
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Dinneen E, Grierson J, Almeida-Magana R, Clow R, Haider A, Allen C, Heffernan-Ho D, Freeman A, Briggs T, Nathan S, Mallett S, Brew-Graves C, Muirhead N, Williams NR, Pizzo E, Persad R, Aning J, Johnson L, Oxley J, Oakley N, Morgan S, Tahir F, Ahmad I, Dutto L, Salmond JM, Kelkar A, Kelly J, Shaw G. NeuroSAFE PROOF: study protocol for a single-blinded, IDEAL stage 3, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of NeuroSAFE robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Trials 2022; 23:584. [PMID: 35869497 PMCID: PMC9306247 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06421-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2022] [Accepted: 05/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a first-line curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are common associated adverse side effects that can negatively impact patients' quality of life. Preserving the lateral neurovascular bundles (NS) during RARP improves functional outcomes. However, selecting men for NS may be difficult when there is concern about incurring in positive surgical margin (PSM) which in turn risks adverse oncological outcomes. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section examination of the neurovascular structure adjacent prostate margin) can provide real-time pathological consult to promote optimal NS whilst avoiding PSM. METHODS NeuroSAFE PROOF is a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which men are randomly allocated 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RARP or standard RARP. Men electing for RARP as primary treatment, who are continent and have good baseline erectile function (EF), defined by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score > 21, are eligible. NS in the intervention arm is guided by the NeuroSAFE technique. NS in the standard arm is based on standard of care, i.e. a pre-operative image-based planning meeting, patient-specific clinical information, and digital rectal examination. The primary outcome is assessment of EF at 12 months. The primary endpoint is the proportion of men who achieve IIEF-5 score ≥ 21. A sample size of 404 was calculated to give a power of 90% to detect a difference of 14% between groups based on a feasibility study. Oncological outcomes are continuously monitored by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. Key secondary outcomes include urinary continence at 3 months assessed by the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire, rate of biochemical recurrence, EF recovery at 24 months, and difference in quality of life. DISCUSSION NeuroSAFE PROOF is the first RCT of intra-operative frozen section during radical prostatectomy in the world. It is properly powered to evaluate a difference in the recovery of EF for men undergoing RARP assessed by patient-reported outcome measures. It will provide evidence to guide the use of the NeuroSAFE technique around the world. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT03317990 (23 October 2017). Regional Ethics Committee; reference 17/LO/1978.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eoin Dinneen
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK.
| | - Jack Grierson
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK
| | | | - Rosie Clow
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK
| | - Aiman Haider
- University College Hospital London, Department of Histopathology, 235 Euston Road, Bristol, NW1 2BU, UK
| | - Clare Allen
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK
| | - Daniel Heffernan-Ho
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- University College Hospital London, Department of Histopathology, 235 Euston Road, Bristol, NW1 2BU, UK
| | - Tim Briggs
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK
| | - Senthil Nathan
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK
| | - Susan Mallett
- Division of Medicine, University College London, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, Sheffield, W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, University College London, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, Sheffield, W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Nicola Muirhead
- Division of Medicine, University College London, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, Sheffield, W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Elena Pizzo
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, Glasgow, WC1E 7HB, UK
| | - Raj Persad
- North Bristol Hospitals Trust, Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Lane, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Jon Aning
- North Bristol Hospitals Trust, Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Lane, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Lyndsey Johnson
- North Bristol Hospitals Trust, Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Lane, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Jon Oxley
- North Bristol Hospitals Trust, Department of Histopathology, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Lane, Westbury-on-Trym, BS10 5NB, Bristol, UK
| | - Neil Oakley
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Urology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, S10 2JF, UK
| | - Susan Morgan
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Histopathology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, S10 2JF, UK
| | - Fawzia Tahir
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Histopathology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, S10 2JF, UK
| | - Imran Ahmad
- Glasgow & Clyde NHS Trust, Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, UK
| | - Lorenzo Dutto
- Glasgow & Clyde NHS Trust, Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, UK
| | - Jonathan M Salmond
- Glasgow & Clude NHS Trust, Department of Histopathology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, UK
| | - Anand Kelkar
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK
- Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals Trust, Rom Valley Way, Romford, RM7 0AG, UK
| | - John Kelly
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK
| | - Greg Shaw
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- University College Hospital London, Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, 6-18 Westmoreland Street, W1G 8PH, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Catto JWF, Khetrapal P, Ricciardi F, Ambler G, Williams NR, Al-Hammouri T, Khan MS, Thurairaja R, Nair R, Feber A, Dixon S, Nathan S, Briggs T, Sridhar A, Ahmad I, Bhatt J, Charlesworth P, Blick C, Cumberbatch MG, Hussain SA, Kotwal S, Koupparis A, McGrath J, Noon AP, Rowe E, Vasdev N, Hanchanale V, Hagan D, Brew-Graves C, Kelly JD. Effect of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy With Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion vs Open Radical Cystectomy on 90-Day Morbidity and Mortality Among Patients With Bladder Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2022; 327:2092-2103. [PMID: 35569079 PMCID: PMC9109000 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.7393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 101] [Impact Index Per Article: 50.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Robot-assisted radical cystectomy is being performed with increasing frequency, but it is unclear whether total intracorporeal surgery improves recovery compared with open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. OBJECTIVES To compare recovery and morbidity after robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal reconstruction vs open radical cystectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of patients with nonmetastatic bladder cancer recruited at 9 sites in the UK, from March 2017-March 2020. Follow-up was conducted at 90 days, 6 months, and 12 months, with final follow-up on September 23, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to receive robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal reconstruction (n = 169) or open radical cystectomy (n = 169). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital within 90 days of surgery. There were 20 secondary outcomes, including complications, quality of life, disability, stamina, activity levels, and survival. Analyses were adjusted for the type of diversion and center. RESULTS Among 338 randomized participants, 317 underwent radical cystectomy (mean age, 69 years; 67 women [21%]; 107 [34%] received neoadjuvant chemotherapy; 282 [89%] underwent ileal conduit reconstruction); the primary outcome was analyzed in 305 (96%). The median number of days alive and out of the hospital within 90 days of surgery was 82 (IQR, 76-84) for patients undergoing robotic surgery vs 80 (IQR, 72-83) for open surgery (adjusted difference, 2.2 days [95% CI, 0.50-3.85]; P = .01). Thromboembolic complications (1.9% vs 8.3%; difference, -6.5% [95% CI, -11.4% to -1.4%]) and wound complications (5.6% vs 16.0%; difference, -11.7% [95% CI, -18.6% to -4.6%]) were less common with robotic surgery than open surgery. Participants undergoing open surgery reported worse quality of life vs robotic surgery at 5 weeks (difference in mean European Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 5-Level instrument scores, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.11 to -0.03]; P = .003) and greater disability at 5 weeks (difference in World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 scores, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.15-0.73]; P = .003) and at 12 weeks (difference in WHODAS 2.0 scores, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.09-0.68]; P = .01); the differences were not significant after 12 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences in cancer recurrence (29/161 [18%] vs 25/156 [16%] after robotic and open surgery, respectively) and overall mortality (23/161 [14.3%] vs 23/156 [14.7%]), respectively) at median follow-up of 18.4 months (IQR, 12.8-21.1). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with nonmetastatic bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy, treatment with robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion vs open radical cystectomy resulted in a statistically significant increase in days alive and out of the hospital over 90 days. However, the clinical importance of these findings remains uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN13680280; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03049410.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James W. F. Catto
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
- Department of Urology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Pramit Khetrapal
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | | | - Gareth Ambler
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Tarek Al-Hammouri
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Muhammad Shamim Khan
- Department of Urology, Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, England
| | - Ramesh Thurairaja
- Department of Urology, Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, England
| | - Rajesh Nair
- Department of Urology, Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, England
| | - Andrew Feber
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Simon Dixon
- Health Economics and Decision Science, NIHR Research Design Service Yorkshire and the Humber, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
| | - Senthil Nathan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Tim Briggs
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Ashwin Sridhar
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Imran Ahmad
- Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland
| | - Jaimin Bhatt
- Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland
| | - Philip Charlesworth
- The Harold Hopkins Department of Urology, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, England
| | - Christopher Blick
- The Harold Hopkins Department of Urology, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, England
| | - Marcus G. Cumberbatch
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
- Department of Urology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England
| | - Syed A. Hussain
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England
| | - Sanjeev Kotwal
- Pyrah Department of Urology, St James University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England
| | | | - John McGrath
- Department of Urology, Royal Devon University Hospitals Foundation Trust and University of Exeter, Exeter, England
| | - Aidan P. Noon
- Department of Urology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England
| | - Edward Rowe
- Department of Urology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England
| | - Nikhil Vasdev
- Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, England
| | | | - Daryl Hagan
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, England
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, England
| | - John D. Kelly
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, England
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Macbeth F, Williams NR, Treasure T. Comment on: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Patient Survival and Disease Recurrence Following Percutaneous Ablation of Pulmonary Metastasis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2022; 45:1114-1116. [DOI: 10.1007/s00270-022-03172-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 05/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
|
19
|
Shah TT, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Grierson J, Miah H, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Clemente J, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra A, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore CM, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU. Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsies Compared to Transperineal Mapping Biopsies Before Focal Ablation in Localised and Metastatic Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radiotherapy. Eur Urol 2022; 81:598-605. [PMID: 35370021 PMCID: PMC9156577 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2021] [Revised: 01/30/2022] [Accepted: 02/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy occurs in one in five patients. The efficacy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in recurrent cancer has not been established. Furthermore, high-quality data on new minimally invasive salvage focal ablative treatments are needed. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the role of prostate MRI in detection of prostate cancer recurring after radiotherapy and the role of salvage focal ablation in treating recurrent disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The FORECAST trial was both a paired-cohort diagnostic study evaluating prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies in the detection of recurrent cancer and a cohort study evaluating focal ablation at six UK centres. A total of 181 patients were recruited, with 155 included in the MRI analysis and 93 in the focal ablation analysis. INTERVENTION Patients underwent choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and a bone scan, followed by prostate mpMRI and MRI-targeted and transperineal template-mapping (TTPM) biopsies. MRI was reported blind to other tests. Those eligible underwent subsequent focal ablation. An amendment in December 2014 permitted focal ablation in patients with metastases. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Primary outcomes were the sensitivity of MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for cancer detection, and urinary incontinence after focal ablation. A key secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Staging whole-body imaging revealed localised cancer in 128 patients (71%), with involvement of pelvic nodes only in 13 (7%) and metastases in 38 (21%). The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83-97%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 75% (95% CI 45-92%), 94% (95% CI 86-98%), and 65% (95% CI 38-86%), respectively. Four cancer (6%) were missed by TTPM biopsy and six (8%) were missed by MRI-targeted biopsy. The overall MRI sensitivity for detection of any cancer was 94% (95% CI 88-98%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 18% (95% CI 7-35%), 80% (95% CI 73-87%), and 46% (95% CI 19-75%), respectively. Among 93 patients undergoing focal ablation, urinary incontinence occurred in 15 (16%) and five (5%) had a grade ≥3 adverse event, with no rectal injuries. Median follow-up was 27 mo (interquartile range 18-36); overall PFS was 66% (interquartile range 54-75%) at 24 mo. CONCLUSIONS Patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies to optimise cancer detection. Focal ablation for areas of intraprostatic recurrence preserves continence in the majority, with good early cancer control. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate and MRI-targeted biopsies in outcomes after cancer-targeted high-intensity ultrasound or cryotherapy in patients with recurrent cancer after radiotherapy. Our findings show that these patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies and then ablative treatment focused on areas of recurrent cancer to preserve their quality of life. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01883128.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Hospital, Maidstone, UK; School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK; High Dimensional Neurology, Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jack Grierson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Haroon Miah
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK; Urology Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Joey Clemente
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London and University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London and University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Treasure T, Williams NR, Macbeth F. The cohort data in the full pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer study: Comment on Engstrand et al. Eur J Surg Oncol 2022; 48:1869-1870. [PMID: 35525726 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.04.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/19/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, UK.
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, UK
| | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardif University, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Macbeth F, Treasure T, Williams NR. Letter in Response to 'Approach to Oligometastatic Cancer in the Elderly Patient'. Curr Oncol Rep 2022; 24:1091-1093. [PMID: 35451687 DOI: 10.1007/s11912-022-01236-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trial Unit, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Williams NR, Patrick H, Fiorentino F, Allen A, Sharma M, Milošević M, Macbeth F, Treasure T. Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) randomised controlled trial: a systematic review of published responses. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62:6567629. [PMID: 35415756 PMCID: PMC9257793 DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezac253] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2022] [Revised: 03/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to assess the nature and tone of the published responses to the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) randomized controlled trial. METHODS Published articles that cited the PulMiCC trial were identified from Clarivate Web of Science (©. Duplicates and self-citations were excluded and relevant text extracted. Four independent researchers rated the extracts independently using agreed scales for the representativeness of trial data and the textual tone. The ratings were aggregated and summarized. Two PulMiCC authors carried out a thematic analysis of the extracts. RESULTS Sixty-four citations were identified and relevant text was extracted and examined. The consensus rating for data inclusion was a median of 0.25 out of 6 (range 0 to 5.25, IQR 0-1.5) and for textual tone the median rating was 1.87 out of 6 (range 0 to 5.75, IQR 1-3.5). The majority of citations did not provide adequate representation of the PulMiCC data and the overall the textual tone was dismissive. Although some were supportive, many discounted the findings because the trial closed early and was underpowered to show non-inferiority. Two misinterpreted the authors' conclusions but there was acceptance that five-year survival was much higher than widely assumed. CONCLUSIONS Published comments reveal a widespread reluctance to consider seriously the results of a carefully conducted randomized trial. This may be because the results challenge accepted practice because of 'motivated reasoning'. But there is a widespread misunderstanding of the fact that though PulMiCC with 93 patients was underpowered to test non-inferiority, it still provides reliable evidence to undermine the widespread belief in a major survival benefit from metastasectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, UK
| | | | - Francesca Fiorentino
- Nightingale-Saunders Clinical Trials & Epidemiology Unit, King's Clinical Trials Unit, Kings College London, UK
| | | | - Manuj Sharma
- Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College, London, UK
| | - Mišel Milošević
- Thoracic Surgery Clinic, Institute for Lung Diseases of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
| | | | - Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Treasure T, Dunning J, Williams NR, Macbeth F. Lung metastasectomy for colorectal cancer: The impression of benefit from uncontrolled studies was not supported in a randomized controlled trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 163:486-490. [PMID: 33840470 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.01.142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2020] [Revised: 11/19/2020] [Accepted: 01/02/2021] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Joel Dunning
- James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Treasure T, Williams NR, Macbeth F. The full cohort of 512 patients and the nested controlled trial in 93 patients in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) study raise doubts about the effective size at present claimed. J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 17:9. [PMID: 35034630 PMCID: PMC8762936 DOI: 10.1186/s13019-022-01757-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2021] [Accepted: 01/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
A comparison of the relative merits of video-assisted pulmonary metastasectomy versus thoracotomy is predicated on the assumption that removal of asymptomatic lung metastases favourably influences survival and that it does so by a large degree. Recently published but long-awaited evidence from a prospective cohort study and a randomised trial of Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) challenges that assumption.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Williams NR, Macbeth F, Treasure T. Colorectal cancer-related pulmonary metastasectomy: Factors affecting survival time. Thorac Cancer 2021; 13:517-518. [PMID: 34951126 DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.14240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2021] [Accepted: 11/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Tom Treasure
- Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Fabes J, Ambler G, Shah B, Williams NR, Martin D, Davidson BR, Spiro M. Protocol for a prospective double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility trial of octreotide infusion during liver transplantation. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e055864. [PMID: 34857585 PMCID: PMC8640665 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Liver transplantation is a complex operation that can provide significant improvements in quality of life and survival to the recipients. However, serious complications are common and include major haemorrhage, hypotension and renal failure. Blood transfusion and the development of acute kidney injury lead to both short-term and long-term poor patient outcomes, including an increased risk of death, graft failure, length of stay and reduced quality of life. Octreotide may reduce the incidence of renal dysfunction, perioperative haemorrhage and enhance intraoperative blood pressure. However, octreotide does have risks, including resistant bradycardia, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia and QT prolongation. Hence, a randomised controlled trial of octreotide during liver transplantation is needed to determine the cost-efficacy and safety of its use; this study represents a feasibility study prior to this trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We describe a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility study of continuous infusion of octreotide during liver transplantation surgery. We will recruit 30 adult patients at two liver transplant centres. A blinded infusion during surgery will be administered in a 2:1 ratio of octreotide:placebo. The primary outcomes will determine the feasibility of this study design. These include the recruitment ratio, correct administration of blinded study intervention, adverse event rates, patient and clinician enrolment refusal and completion of data collection. Secondary outcome measures of efficacy and safety will help shape future trials by assessing potential primary outcome measures and monitoring safety end points. No formal statistical tests are planned. This manuscript represents study protocol number 1.3, dated 2 June 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study has received Research Ethics Committee approval. The main study outcomes will be submitted to an open-access journal. TRIAL SPONSOR The Joint Research Office, University College London, UK.Neither the sponsor nor the funder have any role in study design, collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the study report or the decision to submit the report for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04941911) with recruitment due to start in August 2021 with anticipated completion in July 2022. CLINICAL TRIALS UNIT Surgical and Interventional Group, Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Fabes
- Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon, UK
- Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Gareth Ambler
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Bina Shah
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Daniel Martin
- Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon, UK
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Michael Spiro
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Mangold N, Gupta S, Gasnault O, Dromart G, Tarnas JD, Sholes SF, Horgan B, Quantin-Nataf C, Brown AJ, Le Mouélic S, Yingst RA, Bell JF, Beyssac O, Bosak T, Calef F, Ehlmann BL, Farley KA, Grotzinger JP, Hickman-Lewis K, Holm-Alwmark S, Kah LC, Martinez-Frias J, McLennan SM, Maurice S, Nuñez JI, Ollila AM, Pilleri P, Rice JW, Rice M, Simon JI, Shuster DL, Stack KM, Sun VZ, Treiman AH, Weiss BP, Wiens RC, Williams AJ, Williams NR, Williford KH. Perseverance rover reveals an ancient delta-lake system and flood deposits at Jezero crater, Mars. Science 2021; 374:711-717. [PMID: 34618548 DOI: 10.1126/science.abl4051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
[Figure: see text].
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Mangold
- Laboratoire Planétologie et Géodynamique, Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques, Université Nantes, Université Angers, Unité Mixte de Recherche 6112, 44322 Nantes, France
| | - S Gupta
- Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
| | - O Gasnault
- Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, Université de Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier, Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques, Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, 31400 Toulouse, France
| | - G Dromart
- Laboratoire de Géologie de Lyon-Terre Planètes Environnement, Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Ecole Normale Supérieure Lyon, Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
| | - J D Tarnas
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
| | - S F Sholes
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
| | - B Horgan
- Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
| | - C Quantin-Nataf
- Laboratoire de Géologie de Lyon-Terre Planètes Environnement, Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Ecole Normale Supérieure Lyon, Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
| | - A J Brown
- Plancius Research, Severna Park, MD 21146, USA
| | - S Le Mouélic
- Laboratoire Planétologie et Géodynamique, Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques, Université Nantes, Université Angers, Unité Mixte de Recherche 6112, 44322 Nantes, France
| | - R A Yingst
- Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA
| | - J F Bell
- School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - O Beyssac
- Institut de Minéralogie, de Physique des Matériaux et de Cosmochimie, Unité Mixte de Recherche 7590, Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques, Sorbonne Université, Museum National d'Histoires Naturelles, 75005 Paris, France
| | - T Bosak
- Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
| | - F Calef
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
| | - B L Ehlmann
- Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
| | - K A Farley
- Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
| | - J P Grotzinger
- Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
| | - K Hickman-Lewis
- Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, South Kensington, London SW7 5BD, UK.,Dipartimento di Scienze Biologiche, Geologiche e Ambientali, Università di Bologna, I-40126 Bologna, Italy
| | - S Holm-Alwmark
- Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.,Department of Geology, Lund University, 22362 Lund, Sweden.,Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, 1350 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - L C Kah
- Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
| | - J Martinez-Frias
- Instituto de Geociencias, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Universidad Complutense Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
| | - S M McLennan
- Department of Geosciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
| | - S Maurice
- Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, Université de Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier, Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques, Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, 31400 Toulouse, France
| | - J I Nuñez
- Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723, USA
| | - A M Ollila
- Space and Planetary Exploration Team, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
| | - P Pilleri
- Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, Université de Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier, Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques, Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, 31400 Toulouse, France
| | - J W Rice
- School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - M Rice
- Geology Department, College of Science and Engineering, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225, USA
| | - J I Simon
- Center for Isotope Cosmochemistry and Geochronology, Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058, USA
| | - D L Shuster
- Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
| | - K M Stack
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
| | - V Z Sun
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
| | - A H Treiman
- Lunar and Planetary Institute, Universities Space Research Association, Houston, TX 77058, USA
| | - B P Weiss
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.,Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
| | - R C Wiens
- Space and Planetary Exploration Team, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
| | - A J Williams
- Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
| | - N R Williams
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
| | - K H Williford
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.,Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, Seattle, WA 98104, USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Martin DS, McNeil M, Brew-Graves C, Filipe H, O’Driscoll R, Stevens JL, Burnish R, Cumpstey AF, Williams NR, Mythen MG, Grocott MPW. A feasibility randomised controlled trial of targeted oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. J Intensive Care Soc 2021; 22:280-287. [PMID: 35154365 PMCID: PMC8829765 DOI: 10.1177/17511437211010031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite oxygen being the commonest drug administered to critically ill patients we do not know which oxygen saturation (SpO2) target results in optimal survival outcomes in those receiving mechanical ventilation. We therefore conducted a feasibility randomised controlled trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to assess whether it would be possible to host a larger national multi-centre trial to evaluate oxygenation targets in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS We set out to recruit 60 participants across two sites into a trial in which they were randomised to receive conservative oxygenation (SpO2 88-92%) or usual care (control - SpO2 ≥96%). The primary outcome was feasibility; factors related to safety and clinical outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS A total of 34 patients were recruited into the study until it was stopped due to time constraints. A number of key barriers to success were identified during the course of the study. The conservative oxygenation intervention was feasible and appeared to be safe in this small patient cohort and it achieved wide separation of the median time-weighted average (IQR) SpO2 at 91% (90-92%) in conservative oxygenation group versus 97% (96-97%) in control group. CONCLUSION Whilst conservative oxygenation was a feasible and safe intervention which achieved clear group separation in oxygenation levels, the model used in this trial will require alterations to improve future participant recruitment rates in the UK.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel S Martin
- Intensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK
- Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - Margaret McNeil
- Intensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK
| | | | - Helder Filipe
- Intensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK
| | - Ronan O’Driscoll
- Respiratory Medicine, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Jia Liu Stevens
- Intensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - Rachel Burnish
- Acute Perioperative and Critical Care Research Theme, Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton/University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Andrew F Cumpstey
- Acute Perioperative and Critical Care Research Theme, Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton/University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - Michael G Mythen
- University College London Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Michael PW Grocott
- Acute Perioperative and Critical Care Research Theme, Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton/University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Treasure T, Farewell V, Macbeth F, Batchelor T, Milosevic M, King J, Zheng Y, Leonard P, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Morris E, Fallowfield L. The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) burden of care study: Analysis of local treatments for lung metastases and systemic chemotherapy in 220 patients in the PulMiCC cohort. Colorectal Dis 2021; 23:2911-2922. [PMID: 34310835 DOI: 10.1111/codi.15833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2021] [Revised: 07/07/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
AIM The aim of this work was to examine the burden of further treatments in patients with colorectal cancer following a decision about lung metastasectomy. METHOD Five teams participating in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) study provided details on subsequent local treatments for lung metastases, including the use of chemotherapy. For patients in three groups (no metastasectomy, one metastasectomy or multiple local interventions), baseline factors and selection criteria for additional treatments were examined. RESULTS The five teams recruited 220 patients between October 2010 and January 2017. No lung metastasectomy was performed in 51 patients, 114 patients had one metastasectomy and 55 patients had multiple local interventions. Selection for initial metastasectomy was associated with nonelevated carcinoembryonic antigen, fewer metastases and no prior liver metastasectomy. These patients also had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores and lung function at baseline. Four sites provided information on chemotherapy in 139 patients: 79 (57%) had one to five courses of chemotherapy, to a total of 179 courses. The patterns of survival after one or multiple metastasectomy interventions showed evidence of guarantee-time bias contributing to an impression of benefit over no metastasectomy. After repeated metastasectomy, a significantly higher risk of death was observed, with no apparent reduction in chemotherapy usage. CONCLUSION Repeated metastasectomy is associated with a higher risk of death without reducing the use of chemotherapy. Continued monitoring without surgery might reassure patients with indolent disease or allow response assessment during systemic treatment. Overall, the carefully collected information from the PulMICC study provides no indication of an important survival benefit from metastasectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Tim Batchelor
- Bristol Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals, Bristol, UK
| | - Misel Milosevic
- Institute for Lung Diseases of Vojvodina, Thoracic Surgery Clinic, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
| | | | - Yan Zheng
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zheng Zhou University/Henan Cancer Hospital, Zheng Zhou, Henan Province, China
| | - Pauline Leonard
- Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals, Romford, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), University College London, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, National Cancer Imaging Accelerator (NCIA), University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Lesley Fallowfield
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), University of Sussex, Falmer, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Williams NR, Treasure T, Macbeth F, Fallowfield L. The Prospective Observational Cohort and the Nested Randomized Controlled Trial in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC Study) Question the Reliance on Existing Evidence for the Magnitude of Benefit From Lung Metastasectomy. Am J Clin Oncol 2021; 44:502-503. [PMID: 34432668 PMCID: PMC7611601 DOI: 10.1097/coc.0000000000000847] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, UK
| | - Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, UK
| | | | - Lesley Fallowfield
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), University of Sussex, Sussex, UK
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Vaidya JS, Bulsara M, Baum M, Wenz F, Massarut S, Pigorsch S, Alvarado M, Douek M, Saunders C, Flyger H, Eiermann W, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Potyka I, Roberts N, Bernstein M, Brown D, Sperk E, Laws S, Sütterlin M, Corica T, Lundgren S, Holmes D, Vinante L, Bozza F, Pazos M, Blanc-Onfroy ML, Gruber G, Polkowski W, Dedes KJ, Niewald M, Blohmer J, McReady D, Hoefer R, Kelemen P, Petralia G, Falzon M, Joseph D, Tobias JS. New clinical and biological insights from the international TARGIT-A randomised trial of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy for breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2021; 125:380-389. [PMID: 34035435 PMCID: PMC8329051 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01440-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2020] [Revised: 04/26/2021] [Accepted: 05/13/2021] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The TARGIT-A trial reported risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) during lumpectomy for breast cancer to be as effective as whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Here, we present further detailed analyses. METHODS In total, 2298 women (≥45 years, invasive ductal carcinoma ≤3.5 cm, cN0-N1) were randomised. We investigated the impact of tumour size, grade, ER, PgR, HER2 and lymph node status on local recurrence-free survival, and of local recurrence on distant relapse and mortality. We analysed the predictive factors for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT as part of the risk-adapted approach, using regression modelling. Non-breast cancer mortality was compared between TARGIT-IORT plus EBRT vs. EBRT. RESULTS Local recurrence-free survival was no different between TARGIT-IORT and EBRT, in every tumour subgroup. Unlike in the EBRT arm, local recurrence in the TARGIT-IORT arm was not a predictor of a higher risk of distant relapse or death. Our new predictive tool for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT is at https://targit.org.uk/addrt . Non-breast cancer mortality was significantly lower in the TARGIT-IORT arm, even when patients received supplemental EBRT, HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.88) P = 0.0091. CONCLUSION TARGIT-IORT is as effective as EBRT in all subgroups. Local recurrence after TARGIT-IORT, unlike after EBRT, has a good prognosis. TARGIT-IORT might have a beneficial abscopal effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN34086741 (21/7/2004), NCT00983684 (24/9/2009).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jayant S Vaidya
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Max Bulsara
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, WA, Australia
| | - Michael Baum
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Frederik Wenz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Samuele Massarut
- Department of Surgery, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Steffi Pigorsch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Red Cross Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Alvarado
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Michael Douek
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Henrik Flyger
- Department of Breast Surgery, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Wolfgang Eiermann
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Red Cross Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ingrid Potyka
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nicholas Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Douglas Brown
- Department of Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
| | - Elena Sperk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Siobhan Laws
- Department of Surgery, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Winchester, UK
| | - Marc Sütterlin
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Berlin, Germany
| | - Tammy Corica
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Steinar Lundgren
- Department of Oncology, St Olav's University Hospital, & Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Dennis Holmes
- John Wayne Cancer Institute & Helen Rey Breast Cancer Foundation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Lorenzo Vinante
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Fernando Bozza
- Department of Surgery, Instituto Oncologico Veneto (IVO) IRCCS, Padoa, Italy
| | - Montserrat Pazos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilians Universitat, Munich, Germany
| | | | | | - Wojciech Polkowski
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
| | | | | | - Jens Blohmer
- Sankt Gertrauden-Krankenhaus, and The Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | | | | | - Pond Kelemen
- Ashikari Breast Center, New York Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Gloria Petralia
- Department of Surgery, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Mary Falzon
- Department of Pathology University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - David Joseph
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Jeffrey S Tobias
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Treasure T, Farewell V, Macbeth F, Batchelor T, Milošević M, King J, Zheng Y, Leonard P, Williams NR, Brew‐Graves C, Fallowfield L. The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer cohort study: Analysis of case selection, risk factors and survival in a prospective observational study of 512 patients. Colorectal Dis 2021; 23:1793-1803. [PMID: 33783109 PMCID: PMC8496511 DOI: 10.1111/codi.15651] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2021] [Revised: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
AIM We wanted to examine survival in patients with resected colorectal cancer (CRC) whose lung metastases are or are not resected. METHODS Teams participating in the study of Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) identified potential candidates for lung metastasectomy and invited their consent to join Stage 1. Baseline data related to CRC and fitness for surgery were collected. Eligible patients were invited to consent for randomization in the PulMiCC randomized controlled trial (Stage 2). Sites were provided with case report forms for non-randomized patients to record adverse events and death at any time. They were all reviewed at 1 year. Baseline and survival data were analysed for the full cohort. RESULTS Twenty-five clinical sites recruited 512 patients from October 2010 to January 2017. Data collection closed in October 2020. Before analysis, 28 patients with non-CRC lung lesions were excluded and three had withdrawn consent leaving 481. The date of death was known for 292 patients, 136 were alive in 2020 and 53 at earlier time points. Baseline factors and 5-year survival were analysed in three strata: 128 non-randomized patients did not have metastasectomy; 263 had elective metastasectomy; 90 were from the randomized trial. The proportions of solitary metastases for electively operated and non-operated patients were 69% and 35%. Their respective 5-year survivals were 47% and 22%. CONCLUSION Survival without metastasectomy was greater than widely presumed. Difference in survival appeared to be largely related to selection. No inference can be drawn about the effect of metastasectomy on survival in this observational study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research UnitUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | | | | | - Tim Batchelor
- Bristol Royal InfirmaryUniversity HospitalsBristolUK
| | - Mišel Milošević
- Institute for Lung Diseases of VojvodinaThoracic Surgery ClinicSremska KamenicaSerbia
| | - Juliet King
- Thoracic SurgeryGuy's and St Thomas'HospitalLondonUK
| | - Yan Zheng
- Department of Thoracic SurgeryAffiliated Cancer Hospital of ZhengZhou University/Henan Cancer HospitalZheng ZhouChina
| | - Pauline Leonard
- Barking, Havering and Redbridge University HospitalsRomfordUK
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (SITU)University College LondonLondonUK
| | - Chris Brew‐Graves
- National Cancer Imaging Accelerator (NCIA)Division of MedicineUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Lesley Fallowfield
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE‐C)University of SussexFalmerUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Dinneen E, Haider A, Grierson J, Freeman A, Oxley J, Briggs T, Nathan S, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Persad R, Aning J, Jameson C, Ratynska M, Ben-Salha I, Ball R, Clow R, Allen C, Heffernan-Ho D, Kelly J, Shaw G. NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 2021; 127:676-686. [PMID: 32985121 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To report on the methods, peri-operative outcomes and histopathological concordance between frozen and final section from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study (NCT03317990). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between May 2018 and March 2019, 49 patients at two UK centres underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Twenty-five patient were randomized to NeuroSAFE RARP (intervention arm) and 24 to standard RARP (control arm). Frozen section was compared to final paraffin section margin assessment in the 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm. Operation timings and complications were collected prospectively in both arms. RESULTS Fifty neurovascular bundles (NVBs) from 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm were analysed. When analysed by each pathological section (n = 250, average five per side), we noted a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.2%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.994 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.985 to 1; P ≤0.001). On an NVB basis (n = 50), sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 92.7%, and the AUC was 0.963 (95% CI 0.914 to 1; P ≤0.001). NeuroSAFE RARP lasted a mean of 3 h 16 min (knife to skin to off table, 95% CI 3 h 2 min-3 h 30 min) compared to 2 h 4 min (95% CI 2 h 2 min-2 h 25 min; P ≤0.001) for standard RARP. There was no morbidity associated with the additional length of operating time on in the NeuroSAFE arm. CONCLUSION This feasibility study demonstrates the safety, reproducibility and excellent histopathological concordance of the NeuroSAFE technique in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Although the technique increases the duration of RARP, this does not cause short-term harm. Confirmation of feasibility has led to the opening of the fully powered NeuroSAFE PROOF randomized controlled trial, which is currently under way at four sites in the UK.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eoin Dinneen
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Aiman Haider
- Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Jack Grierson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Jon Oxley
- Department of Histopathology, North Bristol Hospitals Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
| | - Tim Briggs
- Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Senthil Nathan
- Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Raj Persad
- Department of Urology, North Bristol Hospitals Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
| | - Jon Aning
- Department of Urology, North Bristol Hospitals Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
| | - Charles Jameson
- Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Marzena Ratynska
- Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Imen Ben-Salha
- Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Rhys Ball
- Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Rosie Clow
- Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Clare Allen
- Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Daniel Heffernan-Ho
- Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - John Kelly
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Greg Shaw
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Gvozdanovic A, Mangiapelo R, Patel R, Kirby G, Kitchen N, Miserocchi A, McEvoy A, Grover P, Thorne L, Fersht N, Williams NR, Marcus H, Kosmin M. Implementation of the Vinehealth application, a digital health tool, into the care of patients living with brain cancer. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e13582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
e13582 Background: Cancers of the brain lead to significant neurocognitive, physical and psychological morbidities. Digital technologies provide a novel platform to capture and evaluate these needs. Mobile health (mHealth) applications typically focus on one aspect of care rather than addressing the multimodal needs of the demographic of these patients. The Vinehealth application aims to address this by tracking symptoms, delivering machine learning-based personalised educational content, and facilitating reminders for medications and appointments. Where mHealth interventions traditionally lack the evidence-based approach of pharmaceuticals, this study acts as an initial step in the rigorous assessment of a new digital health tool. Methods: A mixed methodology approach was applied to evaluate the Vinehealth application as a care delivery adjunct. Patients with brain cancer were recruited from the day of their procedure ± 7 days. Over a 12-week period, we collected real-world and ePRO data via the application. We assessed qualitative feedback from mixed-methodology surveys and semi-structured interviews at onboarding and after two weeks of application use. Results: Six participants enrolled of whom four downloaded the application; four completed all interviews. One patient set up their device incorrectly and so couldn't receive the questionnaires; excluding this patient, the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-BN20 completion rates were 100% and 83% respectively. Average scores (±SD) at onboarding and offboarding were EQ-5D-5L: 2.07±1.28 and 1.73±1.22, and QLQ-BN20: 13.33 and 22.5. In total: 212 symptoms, 174 activity, and 47 medication data points were captured, and 113 educational articles were read. Participants were generally optimistic about application use. All users stated they would recommend Vinehealth and expressed subjective improvements in care. Accessibility issues in the ePRO delivery system which impacted completion rate were identified and have subsequently been fully addressed. Conclusions: This feasibility study showed acceptable patient use, led to a subjective improvement in care, and demonstrated effective collection of real-world and validated ePRO data. This provides a strong basis to further explore the integration of the Vinehealth application into brain cancer care. This study will inform the design of a larger, more comprehensive trial continuing to evaluate improvements in care delivery through data collection, educational support and patient empowerment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Gvozdanovic
- Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Neil Kitchen
- Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom
| | - Anna Miserocchi
- Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andy McEvoy
- Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom
| | - Patrick Grover
- Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lewis Thorne
- Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom
| | - Naomi Fersht
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Hani Marcus
- Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Kosmin
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Macbeth F, Williams NR, Treasure T. Pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. ANZ J Surg 2021; 91:473. [PMID: 33740304 DOI: 10.1111/ans.16658] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2020] [Accepted: 02/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Roberts D, Best LM, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Arunan S, Begum T, Williams NR, Walshaw D, Milne EJ, Tapp M, Csenar M, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD013155. [PMID: 33837526 PMCID: PMC8094233 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013155.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments. OBJECTIVES To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danielle Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Lawrence Mj Best
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Sivapatham Arunan
- General and Colorectal Surgery, Ealing Hospital and Imperial College, London, Northwood, UK
| | | | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical & Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, London, UK
| | - Dana Walshaw
- Acute Medicine, Barts and The London NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Mario Csenar
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Roccarina D, Best LM, Freeman SC, Roberts D, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Benmassaoud A, Plaz Torres MC, Iogna Prat L, Csenar M, Arunan S, Begum T, Milne EJ, Tapp M, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Williams NR, Gurusamy KS. Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD013121. [PMID: 33822357 PMCID: PMC8092414 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013121.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details. MAIN RESULTS We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Davide Roccarina
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Lawrence Mj Best
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Danielle Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Amine Benmassaoud
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | | | - Laura Iogna Prat
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Mario Csenar
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sivapatham Arunan
- General and Colorectal Surgery, Ealing Hospital and Imperial College, London, Northwood, UK
| | | | | | | | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical & Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, London, UK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Treasure T, Williams NR. Lung metastasectomy for colorectal cancer in the PulMiCC randomised controlled trial. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2021; 3:100080. [PMID: 34557807 PMCID: PMC8454816 DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Plaz Torres MC, Best LM, Freeman SC, Roberts D, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Roccarina D, Benmassaoud A, Iogna Prat L, Williams NR, Csenar M, Fritche D, Begum T, Arunan S, Tapp M, Milne EJ, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3:CD013122. [PMID: 33784794 PMCID: PMC8094621 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013122.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lawrence Mj Best
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Danielle Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Davide Roccarina
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Amine Benmassaoud
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Laura Iogna Prat
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical & Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, London, UK
| | - Mario Csenar
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | | | | - Sivapatham Arunan
- General and Colorectal Surgery, Ealing Hospital and Imperial College, London, Northwood, UK
| | | | | | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Inua B, Fung V, Al-Shurbasi N, Howells S, Hatsiopoulou O, Somarajan P, Zardin GJ, Williams NR, Kohlhardt S. Sentinel lymph node biopsy with one-step nucleic acid assay relegates the need for preoperative ultrasound-guided biopsy staging of the axilla in patients with early stage breast cancer. Mol Clin Oncol 2021; 14:51. [PMID: 33604041 PMCID: PMC7849070 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2021.2213] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2019] [Accepted: 08/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Avoiding axillary node clearance in patients with early stage breast cancer and low-burden node-positive axillary disease is an emerging practice. Informing the decision to adopt axillary conservation is examined by comparing routine preoperative axillary staging using ultrasound (AUS) ± AUS biopsy (AUSB) with intraoperative staging using sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and a one-step nucleic acid cytokeratin-19 amplification assay (OSNA). A single-centre, retrospective cohort study of 1,315 consecutive new diagnoses of breast cancer in 1,306 patients was undertaken in the present study. An AUS ± AUSB was performed on all patients as part of their initial assessment. Patients who had a normal ultrasound (AUS-) or negative biopsy (AUSB-) followed by SLNB with OSNA ± axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and those with a positive AUSB (AUSB+), were assessed. Tests for association were determined using a χ2 and Fisher's Exact test. A total of 266 (20.4%) patients with cT1-3 cN0 staging received 271 AUSBs. Of these, 205 biopsies were positive and 66 were negative. The 684 patients with an AUS-/AUSB-assessment proceeded to SLNB with OSNA. AUS sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) were 0.53 [0.44-0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI)] and 0.58 (0.53-0.64, 95% CI), respectively. Using a total tumour load cut-off of 15,000 copies/µl to predict ≥2 macro-metastases, the sensitivity and NPV for OSNA were 0.82 (0.71-0.92, 95% CI) and 0.98 (0.97-0.99, 95% CI) (OSNA vs. AUS P<0.0001). Of the AUSB+ patients, 51% had ≤2 positive nodes following ALND and were potentially over-treated. Where available, SLNB with OSNA should replace AUSB for axillary assessment in cT1-2 cN0 patients with ≤2 indeterminate nodes seen on AUS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bello Inua
- Department of Breast, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
| | - Victoria Fung
- Department of Breast, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
| | - Nour Al-Shurbasi
- Department of Breast, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
| | - Sarah Howells
- Department of Breast Screening and Breast Imaging, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
| | - Olga Hatsiopoulou
- Department of Breast Screening and Breast Imaging, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
| | - Praveen Somarajan
- Department of Breast Screening and Breast Imaging, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
| | - Gregory J Zardin
- Department of Histopathology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Stan Kohlhardt
- Department of Breast, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Treasure T, Macbeth F, Farewell V, Williams NR, Fallowfield L. The fallacy of large survival gains from lung metastasectomy in colorectal cancer. Lancet 2021; 397:97-98. [PMID: 33422259 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32760-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2020] [Accepted: 08/27/2020] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
| | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Lesley Fallowfield
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Brew-Graves C, Farewell V, Monson K, Milošević M, Williams NR, Morris E, Macbeth F, Treasure T, Fallowfield L. Pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: health utility scores by EQ-5D-3L in a randomized controlled trial show no benefit from lung metastasectomy. Colorectal Dis 2021; 23:200-205. [PMID: 33002305 PMCID: PMC7612179 DOI: 10.1111/codi.15386] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2020] [Revised: 09/17/2020] [Accepted: 09/19/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
AIM The aim was to assess the health utility of lung metastasectomy in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. METHODS Multidisciplinary CRC teams at 14 sites recruited patients to a two-arm randomized controlled trial-Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC). Remote randomization was used, stratified by site and with minimization for seven known confounders. Participants completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire together with other patient reported outcome measures at randomization and then again at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. These were returned by post to the coordinating centre. RESULTS Between December 2010 and December 2016, 93 participants were randomized, 91 of whom returned questionnaires. Survival and patient reported quality of life have been published previously, revealing no significant differences between the trial arms. Described here are patient reported data from the five dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L and the visual analogue scale (VAS) health state. No significant difference was seen at any time point. The estimated difference between control and metastasectomy patients was -0.23 (95% CI -0.113, 0.066) for the composite 0 to 1 index scale based on the descriptive system and 0.123 (95% CI -7.24, 7.49) for the 0 to 100 VAS scale. CONCLUSIONS Following lung metastasectomy for CRC, no benefit was demonstrated for health utility, which alongside a lack of a survival or quality of life benefit calls into question the widespread use of the procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Brew-Graves
- National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator (NCITA), Division of Medicine, UCL, London, UK
| | - Vernon Farewell
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Kathryn Monson
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK
| | - Mišel Milošević
- Thoracic Surgery Clinic, Institute for Lung Diseases of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), University College London, London, UK
| | - Eva Morris
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Lesley Fallowfield
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Williams NR, Macbeth F, Treasure T. Pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: PulMiCC and future trials. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2020; 10:2215-2217. [PMID: 33140001 DOI: 10.21037/qims-20-774] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Williams NR, Treasure T, Macbeth F. Pulmonary Metastasectomy for Colorectal Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial. Radiology 2020; 298:E54-E55. [PMID: 33107803 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020202862] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, England
| | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Treasure T, Leonard P, Milosevic M, Williams NR, Macbeth F, Farewell V. Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer: the PulMiCC randomised controlled trial. Br J Surg 2020; 107:e489-e490. [PMID: 32820820 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11948] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2020] [Accepted: 07/01/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
| | - Pauline Leonard
- Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
| | - Misel Milosevic
- Institute for Lung Diseases of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Vaidya JS, Bulsara M, Baum M, Wenz F, Massarut S, Pigorsch S, Alvarado M, Douek M, Saunders C, Flyger HL, Eiermann W, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Potyka I, Roberts N, Bernstein M, Brown D, Sperk E, Laws S, Sütterlin M, Corica T, Lundgren S, Holmes D, Vinante L, Bozza F, Pazos M, Le Blanc-Onfroy M, Gruber G, Polkowski W, Dedes KJ, Niewald M, Blohmer J, McCready D, Hoefer R, Kelemen P, Petralia G, Falzon M, Joseph DJ, Tobias JS. Long term survival and local control outcomes from single dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy (TARGIT-IORT) for early breast cancer: TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial. BMJ 2020; 370:m2836. [PMID: 32816842 PMCID: PMC7500441 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 134] [Impact Index Per Article: 33.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether risk adapted intraoperative radiotherapy, delivered as a single dose during lumpectomy, can effectively replace postoperative whole breast external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer. DESIGN Prospective, open label, randomised controlled clinical trial. SETTING 32 centres in 10 countries in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada. PARTICIPANTS 2298 women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma up to 3.5 cm in size, cN0-N1, eligible for breast conservation and randomised before lumpectomy (1:1 ratio, blocks stratified by centre) to either risk adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). INTERVENTIONS Random allocation was to the EBRT arm, which consisted of a standard daily fractionated course (three to six weeks) of whole breast radiotherapy, or the TARGIT-IORT arm. TARGIT-IORT was given immediately after lumpectomy under the same anaesthetic and was the only radiotherapy for most patients (around 80%). TARGIT-IORT was supplemented by EBRT when postoperative histopathology found unsuspected higher risk factors (around 20% of patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Non-inferiority with a margin of 2.5% for the absolute difference between the five year local recurrence rates of the two arms, and long term survival outcomes. RESULTS Between 24 March 2000 and 25 June 2012, 1140 patients were randomised to TARGIT-IORT and 1158 to EBRT. TARGIT-IORT was non-inferior to EBRT: the local recurrence risk at five year complete follow-up was 2.11% for TARGIT-IORT compared with 0.95% for EBRT (difference 1.16%, 90% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.99). In the first five years, 13 additional local recurrences were reported (24/1140 v 11/1158) but 14 fewer deaths (42/1140 v 56/1158) for TARGIT-IORT compared with EBRT. With long term follow-up (median 8.6 years, maximum 18.90 years, interquartile range 7.0-10.6) no statistically significant difference was found for local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.41, P=0.28), mastectomy-free survival (0.96, 0.78 to 1.19, P=0.74), distant disease-free survival (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12, P=0.30), overall survival (0.82, 0.63 to 1.05, P=0.13), and breast cancer mortality (1.12, 0.78 to 1.60, P=0.54). Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (0.59, 0.40 to 0.86, P=0.005). CONCLUSION For patients with early breast cancer who met our trial selection criteria, risk adapted immediate single dose TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was an effective alternative to EBRT, with comparable long term efficacy for cancer control and lower non-breast cancer mortality. TARGIT-IORT should be discussed with eligible patients when breast conserving surgery is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN34086741, NCT00983684.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jayant S Vaidya
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, 43-45 Foley Street, London W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Max Bulsara
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, WA, Australia
| | - Michael Baum
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, 43-45 Foley Street, London W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Frederik Wenz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Samuele Massarut
- Department of Surgery, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Steffi Pigorsch
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Red Cross Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Alvarado
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Michael Douek
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Henrik L Flyger
- Department of Breast Surgery, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Wolfgang Eiermann
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Red Cross Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, 43-45 Foley Street, London W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, 43-45 Foley Street, London W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Ingrid Potyka
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, 43-45 Foley Street, London W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Nicholas Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, 43-45 Foley Street, London W1W 7JN, UK
| | | | - Douglas Brown
- Department of Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
| | - Elena Sperk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Siobhan Laws
- Department of Surgery, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Winchester, UK
| | - Marc Sütterlin
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Tammy Corica
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Steinar Lundgren
- Department of Oncology, St Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Dennis Holmes
- University of Southern California, John Wayne Cancer Institute & Helen Rey Breast Cancer Foundation, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Lorenzo Vinante
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | | | - Montserrat Pazos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, The Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | | | | | - Wojciech Polkowski
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
| | | | | | - Jens Blohmer
- Sankt Gertrauden Hospital, Charité, Medical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - David McCready
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Pond Kelemen
- Ashikari Breast Center, New York Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Gloria Petralia
- Department of Surgery, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Mary Falzon
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - David J Joseph
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Best LMJ, Leung J, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Milne EJ, Cowlin M, Payne A, Walshaw D, Thorburn D, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Williams NR, Gurusamy KS. Induction immunosuppression in adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD013203. [PMID: 31978255 PMCID: PMC6984652 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013203.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liver transplantation is considered the definitive treatment for people with liver failure. As part of post-liver transplantation management, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections. Immunosuppressive drugs can be classified into those that are used for a short period during the beginning phase of immunosuppression (induction immunosuppression) and those that are used over the entire lifetime of the individual (maintenance immunosuppression), because it is widely believed that graft rejections are more common during the first few months after liver transplantation. Some drugs such as glucocorticosteroids may be used for both induction and maintenance immunosuppression because of their multiple modalities of action. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether induction immunosuppression is necessary and if so, the relative efficacy of different immunosuppressive agents. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different induction immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different induction immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until July 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in adults undergoing liver transplantation. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults undergoing liver transplantation. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had multivisceral transplantation and those who already had graft rejections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of 25 trials (3271 participants; 8 treatments) in the review. Twenty-three trials (3017 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people undergoing primary liver transplantation for various indications and excluded those with HIV and those with renal impairment. The follow-up in the trials ranged from three to 76 months, with a median follow-up of 12 months among trials. All except one trial were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Overall, approximately 7.4% of people who received the standard regimen of glucocorticosteroid induction died and 12.2% developed graft failure. All-cause mortality and graft failure was lower with basiliximab compared with glucocorticosteroid induction: all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CrI 0.31 to 0.93; network estimate, based on 2 direct comparison trials (131 participants; low-certainty evidence)); and graft failure (HR 0.44, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.70; direct estimate, based on 1 trial (47 participants; low-certainty evidence)). There was no evidence of differences in all-cause mortality and graft failure between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of differences in serious adverse events (proportion), serious adverse events (number), renal failure, any adverse events (proportion), any adverse events (number), liver retransplantation, graft rejections (any), or graft rejections (requiring treatment) between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the studies reported health-related quality of life. FUNDING the source of funding for 14 trials was drug companies who would benefit from the results of the study; two trials were funded by neutral organisations who have no vested interests in the results of the study; and the source of funding for the remaining nine trials was unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on low-certainty evidence, basiliximab induction may decrease mortality and graft failure compared to glucocorticosteroids induction in people undergoing liver transplantation. However, there is considerable uncertainty about this finding because this information is based on small trials at high risk of bias. The evidence is uncertain about the effects of different induction immunosuppressants on other clinical outcomes, including graft rejections. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft failure, and health-related quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lawrence MJ Best
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
| | - Jeffrey Leung
- University College LondonMedical SchoolGower StreetLondonUKWC1H6BT
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Alex J Sutton
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | | | | | - Anna Payne
- Royal Free London NHS Foundation TrustHPB and Liver Transplant SurgeryPond StreetLondonGreater LondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Dana Walshaw
- Barts and The London NHS TrustAcute MedicineLondonUK
| | - Douglas Thorburn
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentrePond StreetLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | - Brian R Davidson
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentrePond StreetLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Norman R Williams
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional ScienceSurgical & Interventional Trials Unit (SITU)3rd Floor, Charles Bell House 43 – 45Foley StreetLondonUKW1W 7TY
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Treasure T, Farewell V, Macbeth F, Monson K, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Lees B, Grigg O, Fallowfield L. Pulmonary Metastasectomy versus Continued Active Monitoring in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC): a multicentre randomised clinical trial. Trials 2019; 20:718. [PMID: 31831062 PMCID: PMC6909580 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3837-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 130] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2019] [Accepted: 10/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lung metastasectomy in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without good evidence of survival or palliative benefit. We aimed to test its effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS Multidisciplinary teams in 13 hospitals recruited participants with potentially resectable lung metastases to a multicentre, two-arm RCT comparing active monitoring with or without metastasectomy. Other local or systemic treatments were decided by the local team. Randomisation was remote and stratified by site with minimisation for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, the number of metastases, and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The central Trial Management Group were blind to patient allocation until completion of the analysis. Analysis was on intention to treat with a margin for non-inferiority of 10%. RESULTS Between December 2010 and December 2016, 65 participants were randomised. Characteristics were well-matched in the two arms and similar to those in reported studies: age 35 to 86 years (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 74); primary resection IQR 16 to 35 months previously; stage at resection T1, 2 or 3 in 3, 8 and 46; N1 or N2 in 31 and 26; unknown in 8. Lung metastases 1 to 5 (median 2); 16/65 had previous liver metastases; carcinoembryonic antigen normal in 55/65. There were no other interventions in the first 6 months, no crossovers from control to treatment, and no treatment-related deaths or major adverse events. The Hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing metastasectomy with control, was 0.82 (95%CI 0.43, 1.56). CONCLUSIONS Because of poor and worsening recruitment, the study was stopped. The small number of participants in the trial (N = 65) precludes a conclusive answer to the research question given the large overlap in the confidence intervals in the proportions still alive at all time points. A widely held belief is that the 5-year absolute survival benefit with metastasectomy is about 35%: 40% after metastasectomy compared to < 5% in controls. The estimated survival in this study was 38% (23-62%) for metastasectomy patients and 29% (16-52%) in the well-matched controls. That is the new and important finding of this RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01106261. Registered on 19 April 2010.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, WC1H 0BT, UK.
| | | | - Fergus Macbeth
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4Y, UK
| | - Kathryn Monson
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Falmer, BN1 9RX, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), University College London, London, W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), University College London, London, W1W 7JN, UK
| | - Belinda Lees
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK
| | | | - Lesley Fallowfield
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Falmer, BN1 9RX, UK
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Dinneen E, Haider A, Allen C, Freeman A, Briggs T, Nathan S, Brew-Graves C, Grierson J, Williams NR, Persad R, Oakley N, Adshead JM, Huland H, Haese A, Shaw G. NeuroSAFE robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus standard robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for men with localised prostate cancer (NeuroSAFE PROOF): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e028132. [PMID: 31189680 PMCID: PMC6575674 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) offers potential cure for localised prostate cancer but is associated with considerable toxicity. Potency and urinary continence are improved when the neurovascular bundles (NVBs) are spared during a nerve spare (NS) RALP. There is reluctance, however, to perform NS RALP when there are concerns that the cancer extends beyond the capsule of the prostate into the NVB, as NS RALP in this instance increases the risk of a positive surgical margin (PSM). The NeuroSAFE technique involves intraoperative fresh-frozen section analysis of the posterolateral aspect of the prostate margin to assess whether cancer extends beyond the capsule. There is evidence from large observational studies that functional outcomes can be improved and PSM rates reduced when the NeuroSAFE technique is used during RALP. To date, however, there has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) to substantiate this finding. The NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study is designed to assess whether it is feasible to randomise men to NeuroSAFE RALP versus a control arm of 'standard of practice' RALP. METHODS NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study will be a multicentre, single-blinded RCT with patients randomised 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RALP (intervention) or standard RALP (control). Treatment allocation will occur after trial entry and consent. The primary outcome will be assessed as the successful accrual of 50 men at three sites over 15 months. Secondary outcomes will be used to aid subsequent power calculations for the definitive full-scale RCT and will include rates of NS; PSM; biochemical recurrence; adjuvant treatments; and patient-reported functional outcomes on potency, continence and quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION NeuroSAFE PROOF has ethical approval (Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978). NeuroSAFE PROOF is supported by National Institute for Healthcare Research Research for Patient Benefit funding (NIHR reference PB-PG-1216-20013). Findings will be made available through peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03317990.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eoin Dinneen
- Department of Urology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London Medical School, London, UK
| | - Aiman Haider
- Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Clare Allen
- Department of Radiology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Tim Briggs
- Department of Urology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Senthil Nathan
- Department of Urology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London Medical School, London, UK
| | - Jack Grierson
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London Medical School, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London Medical School, London, UK
| | - Raj Persad
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, UK
| | - Neil Oakley
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Jim M Adshead
- Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| | - Hartwig Huland
- Martini Klinik, Department of Urology, University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Alexander Haese
- Martini Klinik, Department of Urology, University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Greg Shaw
- Department of Urology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London Medical School, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Hamid S, Donaldson IA, Hu Y, Rodell R, Villarini B, Bonmati E, Tranter P, Punwani S, Sidhu HS, Willis S, van der Meulen J, Hawkes D, McCartan N, Potyka I, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Freeman A, Moore CM, Barratt D, Emberton M, Ahmed HU. The SmartTarget Biopsy Trial: A Prospective, Within-person Randomised, Blinded Trial Comparing the Accuracy of Visual-registration and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Image-fusion Targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification. Eur Urol 2019; 75:733-740. [PMID: 30527787 PMCID: PMC6469539 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2018] [Accepted: 08/07/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-targeted prostate biopsies can improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and decrease the overdetection of insignificant cancers. It is unknown whether visual-registration targeting is sufficient or augmentation with image-fusion software is needed. OBJECTIVE To assess concordance between the two methods. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We conducted a blinded, within-person randomised, paired validating clinical trial. From 2014 to 2016, 141 men who had undergone a prior (positive or negative) transrectal ultrasound biopsy and had a discrete lesion on mpMRI (score 3-5) requiring targeted transperineal biopsy were enrolled at a UK academic hospital; 129 underwent both biopsy strategies and completed the study. INTERVENTION The order of performing biopsies using visual registration and a computer-assisted MRI/ultrasound image-fusion system (SmartTarget) on each patient was randomised. The equipment was reset between biopsy strategies to mitigate incorporation bias. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The proportion of clinically significant prostate cancer (primary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥3+4=7, maximum cancer core length ≥4mm; secondary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥4+3=7, maximum cancer core length ≥6mm) detected by each method was compared using McNemar's test of paired proportions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The two strategies combined detected 93 clinically significant prostate cancers (72% of the cohort). Each strategy detected 80/93 (86%) of these cancers; each strategy identified 13 cases missed by the other. Three patients experienced adverse events related to biopsy (urinary retention, urinary tract infection, nausea, and vomiting). No difference in urinary symptoms, erectile function, or quality of life between baseline and follow-up (median 10.5 wk) was observed. The key limitations were lack of parallel-group randomisation and a limit on the number of targeted cores. CONCLUSIONS Visual-registration and image-fusion targeting strategies combined had the highest detection rate for clinically significant cancers. Targeted prostate biopsy should be performed using both strategies together. PATIENT SUMMARY We compared two prostate cancer biopsy strategies: visual registration and image fusion. A combination of the two strategies found the most clinically important cancers and should be used together whenever targeted biopsy is being performed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sami Hamid
- Research Department of Urology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ian A Donaldson
- Research Department of Urology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Yipeng Hu
- UCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rachael Rodell
- UCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Barbara Villarini
- UCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ester Bonmati
- UCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Pamela Tranter
- Translational Research Office, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Harbir S Sidhu
- Department of Radiology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sarah Willis
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - David Hawkes
- UCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Neil McCartan
- Research Department of Urology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ingrid Potyka
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Research Department of Urology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Dean Barratt
- UCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Research Department of Urology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Research Department of Urology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|