Search

Abstract Background The insertion of a Totally Implantable Access Port (TIAP) is a routinely employed technique in patients who need a safe and permanent venous access. The number of TIAP implantations is increasing constantly mainly due to advanced treatment options for malignant diseases. Therefore it is important to identify the implantation technique which has the optimal benefit/risk ratio for the patient. Study design A single-centre, randomized, controlled superiority trial to compare two different TIAP implantation techniques. Sample size: 160 patients will be included and randomized intra-operatively. Eligibility criteria: Age equal or older than 18 years, patients scheduled for primary elective implantation of a TIAP in local anaesthesia and a signed informed consent. Primary endpoint: Primary success rate of the randomized technique. Intervention: Venae Sectio in combination with the Seldinger Technique (guide wire and a peel away sheath) will be used to place a TIAP. Reference treatment: Conventional Venae Sectio will be used with a direct insertion of the TIAP without guide wire or peel away sheath. Duration of study: Approximately 20 months. Organisation/Responsibility The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol and in accordance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The trial will also be carried out in keeping with local and regulatory requirements. The Klinisches Studienzentrum Chirurgie (KSC) – Centre of Clinical Trials in Surgery at the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg is responsible for planning and conduction of the trial. Documentation of patient's data will be accomplished via electronical Case Report Files (eCRF) with MACRO®-Software by the KSC. Randomization, data management, monitoring and biometry are provided by the independent Koordinierungszentrum für Klinische Studien (KKS) – Coordination Centre for Clinical Trails at the University of Heidelberg.

Objective: To examine the current ethical review process (ERP) of ethics committees in a non-pharmacological trial from the perspective of a clinical investigator. Design: Prospective collection of data at the Study Centre of the German Surgical Society on the duration, costs and administrative effort of the ERP of a randomised controlled multicentre surgical INSECT Trial (INterrupted or continuous Slowly absorbable sutures-Evaluation of abdominal Closure Techniques Trial, ISRCTN 24023541) between November 2003 and May 2005. Selling: Germany. Participants: 18 ethics committees, including the ethics committee handling the primary approval, responsible overall for 32 clinical sites throughout Germany. 8 ethics committees were located at university medical schools (MSU) and 10 at medical chambers. Duration was measured as days between submission and receipt of final approval, costs in euros and administrative effort by calculation of the product of the total number of different types of documents and the mean number of copies required (primary approval acting as the reference standard). Results: The duration of the ERP ranged from 1 to 176 (median 31) days. The median duration was 26 days at MSUs compared with 34 days at medical chambers. The total cost was €2947. 1 of 8 ethics committees at universities (€250) and 8 of 10 at medical chambers charged a median fee of €162 (mean €269.70). The administrative effort for primary approval was 30. Four ethics committees required a higher administrative effort for secondary approval (37, 39, 42 and 1041. Conclusion: The ERP for non-pharmacological multicentre trials in Germany needs improvement. The administrative process has to be standardised: the application forms and the number and content of the documents required should be identical or at least similar. The fees charged vary considerably and are obviously too high for committees located at medical chambers. However, the duration of the ERP was, with some exceptions, excellent. A centralised ethics committee in Germany for multicentre trials such as the INSECT Trial can simplify the ERP for clinical investigators in and outside the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Annually, more than 90000 surgical procedures of the thyroid gland are performed in Germany. strategies aimed at reducing the duration of the surgical procedure are relevant to patients and the health care system especially in the context of reducing costs. However, new techniques for quick and safe hemostasis have to be tested in clinically relevance randomized controlled trials before a general recommendation can be given. The current standard for occlusion of blood vessels in thyroid surgery is ligatures. Vascular clips may be a safe alternative but have not been investigated in a large RCT. Methods/design: CLIVIT (Clips versus Ligatures in Thyroid Surgery) is an investigator initiated, multicenter, patient-blinded, two-group parallel relevance randomized controlled trial designed by the Study Center of the German Surgical Society. Patients scheduled for elective resection of at least two third of the gland for benign thyroid disease are eligible for participation. After surgical exploration patients are randomized intraoperatively into either the conventional ligature group, or into the clip group. The primary objective is to test for a relevant reduction in operating time (at least 15 min) when using the clip technique. Since April 2004, 121 of the totally required 420 patients were randomized in five centers. Discussion: As in all trials the different forms of bias have to be considered, and as in this case, a surgical trial, the role of surgical expertise plays a key role, and will be documented and analyzed separately. This is the first randomized controlled multicenter relevance trial to compare different vessel occlusion techniques in thyroid surgery with adequate power and other detailed information about the design as well as framework. If significant, the results might be generalized and may change the current surgical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After surgical intervention with curative intention in specialised centres the five-year survival of patients with carcinoma of the exocrine pancreas is only 15%. The ESPAC-1 trial showed an increased five-year survival of 21% achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy. Investigators from the Virginia Mason Clinic have reported a 5-year survival rate of 55% in a phase II trial evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy, immunotherapy and external-beam radiation. Design: The CapRI study is an open, controlled, prospective, randomised multi-centre phase III trial. Patients in study arm A will be treated as outpatients with 5-Fluorouracil; Cisplatin and 3 million units Interferon alpha-2b for 5 1/2 weeks combined with external beam radiation. After chemo-radiation the patients receive continuous 5-FU infusions for two more cycles. Patients in study arm B will be treated as outpatients with intravenous bolus injections of folinic acid, followed by intravenous bolus injections of 5-FU given on 5 consecutive days every 28 days for 6 cycles. A total of 110 patients with specimen-proven R0 or R1 resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma will be enrolled. An interim analysis for patient safety reasons will be done one year after start of recruitment. Evaluation of the primary endpoint will be performed two years after the last patients' enrolment. Discussion: The aim of this study is to evaluate the overall survival period attained by chemo-radiotherapy including interferon alpha 2b administration with adjuvant chemotherapy. The influence of interferon alpha on the effectiveness of the patients' chemoradiation regimen, the toxicity, the disease-free interval and the quality of life are analysed. Different factors are tested in terms of their potential role as predictive markers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours is either a classic Whipple operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy but it is still unclear which of the two procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications, perioperative factors and quality of life., Objectives: Several publications pointed out both advantages and disadvantages of both techniques and the current basis of evidence remains unclear. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of each technique., Search Strategy: A search was conducted to identify all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. Trials were identified by searching the following electronic databases - The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Current Contents. Reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching were hand-searched to identify further relevant trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the classical Whipple (CW) with the pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW) were considered eligible if patients with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data for included studies. A random-effects model was used for pooling data from the different trials. Binary outcomes were compared using odds ratios, continuous outcomes were pooled using weighted mean differences and hazard ratios were used to for the meta-analysis of survival data. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated independently by two authors according to quality standards and by using a questionnaire that covers different aspects of quality., Main Results: 1235 abstracts were retrieved and checked for eligibility and seven RCTs were finally included. The critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. The comparison of overall in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.49; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.40; P=0.18), overall survival (hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P=0.29) and morbidity showed no significant difference. However, operating time (weighted mean difference -68.26 min; 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P=0.0004) and intra-operative blood loss (weighted mean difference -0.76 ml; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.56; P<0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group., Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the PPW and the CW. Given obvious clinical and methodological inter-study heterogeneity, future efforts have to be undertaken to perform high quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well defined outcome parameters.