Search

ObjectiveThe primary aim of this trial was to assess the feasibility of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a multi-institutional setting.BackgroundEsophagectomy is an important, potentially curative treatment for localized esophageal cancer, but is a complex operation. MIE may decrease the morbidity and mortality of resection, and single-institution studies have demonstrated successful outcomes with MIE.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, phase II, prospective, cooperative group study (coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) to evaluate the feasibility of MIE. Patients with biopsy-proven high-grade dysplasia or esophageal cancer were enrolled at 17 credentialed sites. Protocol surgery consisted of either 3-stage MIE or Ivor Lewis MIE. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included adverse events, duration of hospital-stay, and 3-year outcomes.ResultsProtocol surgery was completed in 95 of the 104 patients eligible for the primary analysis (91.3%). The 30-day mortality in eligible patients who underwent MIE was 2.1%; perioperative mortality in all registered patients eligible for primary analysis was 2.9%. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay were 2 and 9 days, respectively. Grade 3 or higher adverse events included anastomotic leak (8.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (5.7%), pneumonitis (3.8%), and atrial fibrillation (2.9%). At a median follow-up of 35.8 months, the estimated 3-year overall survival was 58.4% (95% confidence interval: 47.7%-67.6%). Locoregional recurrence occurred in only 7 patients (6.7%).ConclusionsThis prospective multicenter study demonstrated that MIE is feasible and safe with low perioperative morbidity and mortality and good oncological results. This approach can be adopted by other centers with appropriate expertise in open esophagectomy and minimally invasive surgery.

ObjectiveThe primary aim of this trial was to assess the feasibility of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a multi-institutional setting.BackgroundEsophagectomy is an important, potentially curative treatment for localized esophageal cancer, but is a complex operation. MIE may decrease the morbidity and mortality of resection, and single-institution studies have demonstrated successful outcomes with MIE.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, phase II, prospective, cooperative group study (coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) to evaluate the feasibility of MIE. Patients with biopsy-proven high-grade dysplasia or esophageal cancer were enrolled at 17 credentialed sites. Protocol surgery consisted of either 3-stage MIE or Ivor Lewis MIE. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included adverse events, duration of hospital-stay, and 3-year outcomes.ResultsProtocol surgery was completed in 95 of the 104 patients eligible for the primary analysis (91.3%). The 30-day mortality in eligible patients who underwent MIE was 2.1%; perioperative mortality in all registered patients eligible for primary analysis was 2.9%. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay were 2 and 9 days, respectively. Grade 3 or higher adverse events included anastomotic leak (8.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (5.7%), pneumonitis (3.8%), and atrial fibrillation (2.9%). At a median follow-up of 35.8 months, the estimated 3-year overall survival was 58.4% (95% confidence interval: 47.7%-67.6%). Locoregional recurrence occurred in only 7 patients (6.7%).ConclusionsThis prospective multicenter study demonstrated that MIE is feasible and safe with low perioperative morbidity and mortality and good oncological results. This approach can be adopted by other centers with appropriate expertise in open esophagectomy and minimally invasive surgery.

In glioblastoma, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling is frequently activated by loss of the tumor suppressor phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) (1). However, it is not known whether inhibiting PI3K represents [...]

Real-time data collection of patient health status and medications is sped up with modern electronic devices and technologies. As real-world data provide enormous research opportunities, propensity score (PS) methods have been getting attention due to their theoretical grounds in a nonrandomized study setting. In contrast to randomized clinical trials, observational clinical data obtained from a real-world database may not have balanced distributions of patient characteristics between treatment and control groups at the beginning of the respective study. These imbalanced distributions may cause a bias in an estimated treatment effect, which needs to be eliminated. Propensity scoring is one class of statistical methods to address the imbalance issue of real-world data sets. This article provides basic concepts and assesses advantages, disadvantages, and methodological objectives of propensity scoring. Targeting clinical pharmacology researchers with limited statistical background, 5 representative methods are reviewed and visualized: matching, stratification, covariate modeling, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and doubly robust methods. Examples of applications of PS methods were selected from the literature of outcomes research and drug development, nephrology, and pediatrics. Opportunities of applications related to these examples are described. Furthermore, potential future applications of PS methods in clinical pharmacology are discussed. The 21st Century Cures Act signed in 2016 encourages scientists to find opportunities to apply propensity scoring to real-world data. This article underscores that scientists need to justify their choice of statistical methods, whether a PS method or an alternative method, based on their clinical study design, statistical assumptions, and research objectives., (© 2021, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)