Search

Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases, thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. There have been no adequately powered trials comparing surgery with thermal ablation.Main objective - to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation versus liver resection surgery in high surgical risk patients who would be eligible for liver resection. Pilot study objectives - to assess the feasibility of recruitment (through qualitative study), to assess the quality of ablations and liver resection surgery to determine acceptable standards for the main trial and to centrally review the reporting of computed tomography scan findings relating to ablation and outcomes and recurrence rate in both arms.A prospective, international (UK and the Netherlands), multicentre, open, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 1-year internal pilot study.Tertiary liver, pancreatic and gallbladder (hepatopancreatobiliary) centres in the UK and the Netherlands.Adults with a specialist multidisciplinary team diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases who are at high surgical risk because of their age, comorbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation.Thermal ablation conducted as per local policy (but centres were encouraged to recruit within Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines) versus surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol.Pilot study - patients' and clinicians' acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. Primary outcome - disease-free survival at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes - overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, and disease-free survival measured from end of intervention. It was planned that 5-year survival data would be documented through record linkage. Randomisation was performed by minimisation incorporating a random element, and this was a non-blinded study.In the pilot study over 1 year, a total of 366 patients with colorectal liver metastases were screened and 59 were considered eligible. Only nine participants were randomised. The trial was stopped early and none of the planned statistical analyses was performed. The key issues inhibiting recruitment included fewer than anticipated patients eligible for both treatments, misconceptions about the eligibility criteria for the trial, surgeons' preference for one of the treatments ('lack of clinical equipoise' among some of the surgeons in the centre) with unconscious bias towards surgery, patients' preference for one of the treatments, and lack of dedicated research nurses for the trial.Recruitment feasibility was not demonstrated during the pilot stage of the trial; therefore, the trial closed early. In future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from an initial feasibility study or a longer period of internal pilot study to resolve these difficulties. Sufficient time should be allowed to set up arrangements through National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Networks.Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52040363.This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inIn about 50% of people with bowel cancer, cancer spreads to the liver (colorectal liver metastases) within 5 years of detection and treatment. Liver resection (i.e. surgical removal of a portion of the liver) is the standard treatment in people below 70 years of age who are otherwise well, provided that the liver cancer is confined to a limited part of the liver. Such patients are considered ‘low-risk’ patients. Older patients and those with major medical problems or extensive cancers are considered ‘high-risk’ patients, as they are at a higher risk of developing complications following liver resection. Thermal ablation destroys the liver cancers using a needle that heats the cancer deposits until they are destroyed. There is significant uncertainty as to whether or not ablation can offer equivalent survival compared with surgery for ‘high-risk’ patients. We planned and conducted a randomised controlled trial comparing ablation with surgery to resolve this uncertainty. In this trial, some patients received ablation and others received surgery. The treatment was allocated at random with neither patients nor the study organisers choosing the treatment. The trial had an internal pilot (i.e. a smaller version of the full trial to resolve any ‘teething problems’ and ensure that a sufficient number of participants can be included in the full trial). Only nine patients were recruited in the 1-year internal pilot, compared with the anticipated recruitment of 45 patients. Therefore, the trial closed early as a result of poor recruitment, and the uncertainty about the best treatment for high-risk patients with colorectal liver metastases continues. The main reasons for the poor recruitment included fewer than anticipated eligible participants, clinicians’ unconscious bias towards surgery, and patients’ preference for one treatment or the other. In the future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from a feasibility study or a longer period of pilot study to resolve any difficulties.

Background Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but there are limited data about its safety and efficacy. Objective To undertake an evaluation of robotic compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery to determine its safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Design This was a multicentre, randomised trial comparing robotic with laparoscopic rectal resection in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. Setting The study was conducted at 26 sites across 10 countries and involved 40 surgeons. Participants The study involved 471 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. Recruitment took place from 7 January 2011 to 30 September 2014 with final follow-up on 16 June 2015. Interventions Robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer resections were performed by high anterior resection, low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection. There were 237 patients randomised to robotic and 234 to laparoscopic surgery. Follow-up was at 30 days, at 6 months and annually until 3 years after surgery. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was conversion to laparotomy. Secondary end points included intra- and postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, quality of life (QoL) [measured using the Short Form questionnaire-36 items version 2 (SF-36v2) and the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 (MFI-20)], bladder and sexual dysfunction [measured using the International Prostatic Symptom Score (I-PSS), the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)], and oncological outcomes. An economic evaluation considered the costs of robotic and laparoscopic surgery, including primary and secondary care costs up to 6 months post operation. Results Among 471 randomised patients [mean age 64.9 years, standard deviation (SD) 11.0 years; 320 (67.9%) men], 466 (98.9%) patients completed the study. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall rate of conversion to laparotomy was 10.1% and occurred in 19 (8.1%) patients in the robotic-assisted group and in 28 (12.2%) patients in the conventional laparoscopic group {unadjusted risk difference 4.12% [95% confidence interval (CI) –1.35% to 9.59%], adjusted odds ratio 0.61 [95% CI 0.31 to –1.21]; p = 0.16}. Of the nine prespecified secondary end points, including circumferential resection margin positivity, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, plane of surgery, 30-day mortality and bladder and sexual dysfunction, none showed a statistically significant difference between the groups. No difference between the treatment groups was observed for longer-term outcomes, disease-free and overall survival (OS). Males were at a greater risk of local recurrence than females and had worse OS rates. The costs of robotic and laparoscopic surgery, excluding capital costs, were £11,853 (SD £2940) and £10,874 (SD £2676) respectively. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to conclude that robotic rectal surgery compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery reduces the risk of conversion to laparotomy. There were no statistically significant differences in resection margin positivity, complication rates or QoL at 6 months between the treatment groups. Robotic rectal cancer surgery was on average £980 more expensive than laparoscopic surgery, even when the acquisition and maintenance costs for the robot were excluded. Future work The lower rate of conversion to laparotomy in males undergoing robotic rectal cancer surgery deserves further investigation. The introduction of new robotic systems into the market may alter the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal cancer surgery. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80500123. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate, the Health and Care Research Wales and the Health and Social Care Research and Development Division, Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland. The funders of the study had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication. The project will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 6, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Philip Quirke and Nicholas West were supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research Campaign and the MRC Bioinformatics initiative. David Jayne was supported by a NIHR Research Professorship.

Background: Postoperative bowel dysfunction affects quality of life after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery, but the extent of the problem is not clearly defined due to inconsistent outcome measures used to characterise the condition. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess variation in reporting of postoperative bowel dysfunction and make recommendations for standardisation in future studies. If possible, a quantitative synthesis of bowel dysfunction symptoms was planned. Data Sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library were queried between 2004-2015. Study Selection: The studies selected reported at least one component of bowel dysfunction following resection of rectal cancer. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were reporting, measurement and definition of post-operative bowel dysfunction. Results: Of 5428 studies identified, 234 met inclusion criteria. Widely reported components of bowel dysfunction were incontinence to stool (227/234; 97.0%), frequency (168/234; 71.8%) and incontinence to flatus (158/234; 67.5%). Urgency and stool clustering were reported less commonly, with rates of 106/234 (45.3%) and 61/234 (26.1%). Bowel dysfunction measured as a primary outcome was associated with better reporting (OR: 3.49; 95% CI: 1.99–6.23; P

AIM: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a major complication of rectal cancer surgery. Despite advances in surgical practice, the rates of AL have remained static, at around 10-15%. The aetiology of AL is multifactorial, but one of the most crucial risk factors, which is mostly under the control of the surgeon, is blood supply to the anastomosis. The MRC/NIHR IntAct study will determine whether assessment of anastomotic perfusion using a fluorescent dye (indocyanine green) and near-infrared laparoscopy can minimize the rate of AL leak compared with conventional white-light laparoscopy. Two mechanistic sub-studies will explore the role of the rectal microbiome in AL and the predictive value of CT angiography/perfusion studies. METHOD: IntAct is a prospective, unblinded, parallel-group, multicentre, European, randomized controlled trial comparing surgery with intra-operative fluorescence angiography (IFA) against standard care (surgery with no IFA). The primary end-point is rate of clinical AL at 90 days following surgery. Secondary end-points include all AL (clinical and radiological), change in planned anastomosis, complications and re-interventions, use of stoma, cost-effectiveness of the intervention and quality of life. Patients should have a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the rectum suitable for potentially curative surgery by anterior resection. Over 3 years, 880 patients from 25 European centres will be recruited and followed up for 90 days. DISCUSSION: IntAct will rigorously evaluate the use of IFA in rectal cancer surgery and explore the role of the microbiome in AL and the predictive value of preoperative CT angiography/perfusion scanning.

Background Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases (CLM), thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. A prospective randomised trial is required to define the efficacy of resection vs ablation for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Methods Design and setting: This is a multicentre, open, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial design with internal pilot and will be performed in tertiary liver centres in UK and The Netherlands. Participants: Eligible patients will be those with colorectal liver metastases at high surgical risk because of their age, co-morbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation. Intervention: Thermal ablation as per local policy. Control: Surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol. Co-interventions: Further chemotherapy will be offered to patients as per current practice. Outcomes Pilot study: Same as main study and in addition patients and clinicians’ acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. Primary outcome: Disease-free survival (DFS) at two years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes: Overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, DFS measured from end of intervention. Follow-up: 24 months from randomisation; five-year follow-up for overall survival. Sample size: 330 patients to demonstrate non-inferiority of thermal ablation. Discussion This trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation vs surgical resection for high-risk people with colorectal liver metastases, and guide the optimal treatment for these patients. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN52040363. Registered on 9 March 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2499-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) is used for fluorescence diagnosis (FD) in neurological, gynaecological and urological malignancies. The Medical Research Council/Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme/National Institute for Health Research’s Next Generation intraoperative Lymph node staging for Stratified colon cancer surgery (GLiSten) study investigated its use to predict lymph node (LN)-positive disease in colon cancer as an aid to stratified surgery.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to optimise the dose of oral 5-ALA for intraoperative FD of metastatic LNs in colon cancer. Secondary objectives included standardisation of pre-operative computerised tomography (CT) LN reporting, intraoperative fluorescence detection, surgical resection with D3 lymphadenectomy and histopathological examination of resected specimens.DesignThis was a feasibility study to determine optimal strategies for 5-ALA positive LN detection. Patients with locally advanced disease identified using the Fluoropyrimidine, Oxaliplatin and Targeted-Receptor pre-Operative Therapy for patients with high-risk, operable colon cancer (FOxTROT) criteria were recruited from two sites between October 2013 and June 2015. Cohort 1 received 20 mg/kg and cohort 2 received 30 mg/kg of oral 5-ALA, 1–6 hours preoperatively. Laparoscopic assessment of fluorescence was performed using the Storz D-Light system (KARL STORZ GmbH & Co. KG; Tuttlingen, Germany), with marking of fluorescent LNs, followed by oncological resection. The specimen was subjected to histological analysis with step sectioning of marked fluorescent LNs. Progression to an evaluation phase using the optimal dosing schedule was dependent on positively identifying at least 2 out of 10 patients with metastatic LN disease in either cohort.ResultsA total of 44 patients were recruited with a male to female ratio of 26 : 18 and a mean age of 71 years (range 52–88 years). Cohort 1 consisted of 18 patients, of whom six had fluorescent primary cancers and three of these had fluorescent LNs. One out of 10 patients with metastatic LN disease had a fluorescent involved LN. Cohort 2 consisted of 26 patients, of whom eight had fluorescent primary cancers and four of these had fluorescent LNs. None of the fluorescent LNs contained disease in this cohort. No serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred but two mild, self-limiting, photosensitivity reactions were observed in cohort 2. The sensitivity and specificity for 5-ALA detection of LN-positive disease were: cohort 1 11.1%, 75%; and cohort 2 0%, 75%.LimitationsThis was a feasibility study exploring the use of 5-ALA for LN disease in a select cohort of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The study population was small and generalisation to other cancers is not possible. The study was limited by the ability to determine LN-positive patients on the basis of pre-operative CT staging, which is often inaccurate, resulting in our cohorts containing several patients without LN disease.Conclusions5-ALA fluorescent diagnosis has poor sensitivity for discriminating LN-positive colon cancer. Its use as an aid to stratified colon cancer surgery is not supported. No SAEs were observed, suggesting that photosensitisers may be useful for intraoperative FD.Future work5-ALA has poor sensitivity for detecting LN metastases and cannot be recommended for intraoperative staging. Other, more sensitive fluorescent probes are required if this strategy is to be used.Study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN79949827 and EudraCT number 2012–002623–15.Funding detailsThis project was funded by the EME programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

PURPOSE: Faecal incontinence is a physically, psychologically and socially disabling condition. NICE guidance (2007) recommends surgical intervention, including sacral nerve stimulation (SNS), after failed conservative therapies. The FENIX magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) device is a novel continence device consisting of a flexible band of interlinked titanium beads with magnetic cores that is placed around the anal canal to augment anal sphincter tone through passive attraction of the beads. Preliminary studies suggest the FENIX MSA is safe, but efficacy data is limited. Rigorous evaluation is required prior to widespread adoption. METHOD AND DESIGN: The SaFaRI trial is a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded UK multi-site, parallel group, randomised controlled, unblinded trial that will investigate the use of the FENIX MSA, as compared to SNS, for adult faecal incontinence resistant to conservative management. Twenty sites across the UK, experienced in the treatment of faecal incontinence, will recruit 350 patients randomised equally to receive either SNS or FENIX MSA. Participants will be followed-up at 2 weeks post-surgery and at 6, 12 and 18 months post-randomisation. The primary endpoint is success, as defined by device in use and ≥50 % improvement in the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS) at 18 months post-randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications, quality of life and cost effectiveness. DISCUSSION: SaFaRI will rigorously evaluate a new technology for faecal incontinence, the FENIX™ MSA, allowing its safe and controlled introduction into current clinical practice. These results will inform the future surgical management of adult faecal incontinence.

Importance Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy. Objective To compare robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial comparing robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among 471 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection conducted at 29 sites across 10 countries, including 40 surgeons. Recruitment of patients was from January 7, 2011, to September 30, 2014, follow-up was conducted at 30 days and 6 months, and final follow-up was on June 16, 2015. Interventions Patients were randomized to robotic-assisted (n = 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by either high (upper rectum) or low (total rectum) anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection (rectum and perineum). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was conversion to open laparotomy. Secondary end points included intraoperative and postoperative complications, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+) and other pathological outcomes, quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey and 20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), bladder and sexual dysfunction (International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index), and oncological outcomes. Results Among 471 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [11.0] years; 320 [67.9%] men), 466 (98.9%) completed the study. The overall rate of conversion to open laparotomy was 10.1%: 19 of 236 patients (8.1%) in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group and 28 of 230 patients (12.2%) in the conventional laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 4.1% [95% CI, −1.4% to 9.6%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.31 to 1.21];P = .16). The overall CRM+ rate was 5.7%; CRM+ occurred in 14 (6.3%) of 224 patients in the conventional laparoscopic group and 12 (5.1%) of 235 patients in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 1.1% [95% CI, −3.1% to 5.4%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.76];P = .56). Of the other 8 reported prespecified secondary end points, including intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, plane of surgery, 30-day mortality, bladder dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, as compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy. These findings suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, when performed by surgeons with varying experience with robotic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier:ISRCTN80500123