Search

IMPORTANCE: The optimal approach for treatment deescalation in human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess a primary radiotherapy (RT) approach vs a primary transoral surgical (TOS) approach in treatment deescalation for HPV-related OPSCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This international, multicenter, open-label parallel-group phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted at 9 tertiary academic cancer centers in Canada and Australia and enrolled patients with T1-T2N0-2 p16–positive OPSCC between February 13, 2018, and November 17, 2020. Patients had up to 3 years of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Primary RT (consisting of 60 Gy of RT with concurrent weekly cisplatin in node-positive patients) vs TOS and neck dissection (ND) (with adjuvant reduced-dose RT depending on pathologic findings). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was overall survival (OS) compared with a historical control. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life, and toxic effects. RESULTS: Overall, 61 patients were randomized (30 [49.2%] in the RT arm and 31 [50.8%] in the TOS and ND arm; median [IQR] age, 61.9 [57.2-67.9] years; 8 women [13.6%] and 51 men [86.4%]; 31 [50.8%] never smoked). The trial began in February 2018, and accrual was halted in November 2020 because of excessive toxic effects in the TOS and ND arm. Median follow-up was 17 months (IQR, 15-20 months). For the OS end point, there were 3 death events, all in the TOS and ND arm, including the 2 treatment-related deaths (0.7 and 4.3 months after randomization, respectively) and 1 of myocardial infarction at 8.5 months. There were 4 events for the PFS end point, also all in the TOS and ND arm, which included the 3 mortality events and 1 local recurrence. Thus, the OS and PFS data remained immature. Grade 2 to 5 toxic effects occurred in 20 patients (67%) in the RT arm and 22 (71%) in the TOS and ND arm. Mean (SD) MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory scores at 1 year were similar between arms (85.7 [15.6] and 84.7 [14.5], respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, TOS was associated with an unacceptable risk of grade 5 toxic effects, but patients in both trial arms achieved good swallowing outcomes at 1 year. Long-term follow-up is required to assess OS and PFS outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03210103

IMPORTANCE: Fluid therapy is an important component of care for patients with traumatic brain injury, but whether it modulates clinical outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether continuous infusion of hypertonic saline solution improves neurological outcome at 6 months in patients with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in 9 intensive care units in France, including 370 patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury who were recruited from October 2017 to August 2019. Follow-up was completed in February 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Adult patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury were randomly assigned to receive continuous infusion of 20% hypertonic saline solution plus standard care (n = 185) or standard care alone (controls; n = 185). The 20% hypertonic saline solution was administered for 48 hours or longer if patients remained at risk of intracranial hypertension. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) score (range, 1-8, with lower scores indicating worse functional outcome) at 6 months, obtained centrally by blinded assessors and analyzed with ordinal logistic regression adjusted for prespecified prognostic factors (with a common odds ratio [OR] >1.0 favoring intervention). There were 12 secondary outcomes measured at multiple time points, including development of intracranial hypertension and 6-month mortality. RESULTS: Among 370 patients who were randomized (median age, 44 [interquartile range, 27-59] years; 77 [20.2%] women), 359 (97%) completed the trial. The adjusted common OR for the GOS-E score at 6 months was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.71-1.47; P = .92). Of the 12 secondary outcomes, 10 were not significantly different. Intracranial hypertension developed in 62 (33.7%) patients in the intervention group and 66 (36.3%) patients in the control group (absolute difference, −2.6% [95% CI, −12.3% to 7.2%]; OR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.51-1.26]). There was no significant difference in 6-month mortality (29 [15.9%] in the intervention group vs 37 [20.8%] in the control group; absolute difference, −4.9% [95% CI, −12.8% to 3.1%]; hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.48-1.28]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, treatment with continuous infusion of 20% hypertonic saline compared with standard care did not result in a significantly better neurological status at 6 months. However, confidence intervals for the findings were wide, and the study may have had limited power to detect a clinically important difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03143751

This study defines consensus criteria for diagnosis of idiopathic orbital inflammation using a survey of members of the Expert Panel of the Orbital Society.

IMPORTANCE: Morbidity is still high in pancreatic surgery, driven mainly by gastrointestinal complications such as pancreatic fistula. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are frequently used for pain control after pancreatic surgery. Evidence from a post hoc analysis suggests that PCIA is associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether postoperative PCIA decreases the occurrence of gastrointestinal complications after pancreatic surgery compared with EDA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial conducted from June 30, 2015, to October 1, 2017, 371 patients at 9 European pancreatic surgery centers who were scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized to receive PCIA (n = 185) or EDA (n = 186); 248 patients (124 in each group) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from February 22 to April 25, 2019, using modified intention to treat and per protocol. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the PCIA group received general anesthesia and postoperative PCIA with intravenous opioids with the help of a patient-controlled analgesia device. In the EDA group, patients received general anesthesia and intraoperative and postoperative EDA. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was a composite of pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postoperative ileus within 30 days after surgery. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, other complications, postoperative pain levels, intraoperative or postoperative use of vasopressor therapy, and fluid substitution. RESULTS: Among the 248 patients analyzed (147 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.7] years), the primary composite end point did not differ between the PCIA group (61 [49.2%]) and EDA group (57 [46.0%]) (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.95 P = .54). Neither individual components of the primary end point nor 30-day mortality, postoperative pain levels, or intraoperative and postoperative substitution of fluids differed significantly between groups. Patients receiving EDA gained more weight by postoperative day 4 than patients receiving PCIA (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.8] vs 3.4 [3.6] kg; P = .03) and received more vasopressors (46 [37.1%] vs 31 [25.0%]; P = .04). Failure of EDA occurred in 23 patients (18.5%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that the choice between PCIA and EDA for pain control after pancreatic surgery should not be based on concerns regarding gastrointestinal complications because the 2 procedures are comparable with regard to effectiveness and safety. However, EDA was associated with several shortcomings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007784

This cluster randomized trial evaluates the effect of a single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test on 10-year prostate cancer–specific mortality among men aged 50 to 69 years treated at UK primary care practices.