Procedural Surgical RCTs in Daily Practice: Do Surgeons Adopt Or Is It Just a Waste of Time?

Randomized controlled trials and alternative study designs in surgical oncology

Surgery is central to the cure of most solid cancers and an integral part of modern multimodal cancer management for early and advanced stage cancers. Decisions made by surgeons and multidisciplinary team members are based on best available knowledge for the defined clinical situation at hand. While surgery is both an art and a science, good decision-making requires data that are robust, valid, representative and, applicable to most if not all patients with a specific cancer. Such data largely comes from clinical observations and registries, and more preferably from trials conducted with the specific purpose of arriving at new answers. As part of the ESSO core curriculum development an increased focus has been put on the need to enhance research literacy among surgical candidates. As an expansion of the curriculum catalogue list and to enhance the educational value, we here present a set of principles and emerging concepts which applies to surgical oncologist for reading, understanding, planning and contributing to future surgeon-led cancer trials.

HIPEC in Ovarian Cancer Is the Future… and Always Will Be? Results from a Spanish Multicentric Survey

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death due to gynecological tumors in the female population. Despite optimal first-line treatment, including cytoreduction and platinum-based systemic chemotherapy, recurrences are frequent. The use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been criticized, especially because of the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with convincing results to support the use of HIPEC in patients with ovarian cancer with peritoneal dissemination. In 2018, the clinical trial published by Van Driel et al. reported improved outcomes in favor of HIPEC treatment with cisplatin. In this study, we conducted a national survey within the Spanish group of peritoneal surgical oncology (Grupo Español de Cirugía Oncológica Peritoneal, GECOP) to explore the impact of the results of this RCT on clinical practice. A total of 33 groups completed the survey. Routine clinical practice was not changed in 28 of the 33 groups (85%) based on the results of the Van Driel trial. Despite the results of this RCT, most groups considered that more RCTs are needed and that, in the future, HIPEC may become the standard of care. In conclusion, the results from RCTs evaluating HIPEC treatment in patients with ovarian cancer has not been transferred to clinical practice.

How to assess applicability and methodological quality of comparative studies of operative interventions in orthopedic trauma surgery

PURPOSE

It is challenging to generate and subsequently implement high-quality evidence in surgical practice. A first step would be to grade the strengths and weaknesses of surgical evidence and appraise risk of bias and applicability. Here, we described items that are common to different risk-of-bias tools. We explained how these could be used to assess comparative operative intervention studies in orthopedic trauma surgery, and how these relate to applicability of results.

METHODS

We extracted information from the Cochrane risk-of-bias-2 (RoB-2) tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I), and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria and derived a concisely formulated set of items with signaling questions tailored to operative interventions in orthopedic trauma surgery.

RESULTS

The established set contained nine items: population, intervention, comparator, outcome, confounding, missing data and selection bias, intervention status, outcome assessment, and pre-specification of analysis. Each item can be assessed using signaling questions and was explained using good practice examples of operative intervention studies in orthopedic trauma surgery.

CONCLUSION

The set of items will be useful to form a first judgment on studies, for example when including them in a systematic review. Existing risk of bias tools can be used for further evaluation of methodological quality. Additionally, the proposed set of items and signaling questions might be a helpful starting point for peer reviewers and clinical readers.

Pain management, fluid therapy and thromboprophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy: a worldwide survey among surgeons

BACKGROUND

The aim of this survey was to assess practices regarding pain management, fluid therapy and thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy on a global basis.

METHODS

This survey study among surgeons from eight (inter)national scientific societies was performed according to the CHERRIES guideline.

RESULTS

Overall, 236 surgeons completed the survey. ERAS protocols are used by 61% of surgeons and respectively 82%, 93%, 57% believed there is a relationship between pain management, fluid therapy, and thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes. Epidural analgesia (50%) was most popular followed by intravenous morphine (24%). A restrictive fluid therapy was used by 58% of surgeons. Chemical thromboprophylaxis was used by 88% of surgeons. Variations were observed between continents, most interesting being the choice for analgesic technique (transversus abdominis plane block was popular in North America), restrictive fluid therapy (little use in Asia and Oceania) and duration of chemical thromboprophylaxis (large variation).

CONCLUSION

The results of this international survey showed that only 61% of surgeons practice ERAS protocols. Although the majority of surgeons presume a relationship between pain management, fluid therapy and thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes, variations in practices were observed. Additional studies are needed to further optimize, standardize and implement ERAS protocols after pancreatic surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery programme (ORANGE Segments): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A shift towards parenchymal-sparing liver resections in open and laparoscopic surgery emerged in the last few years. Laparoscopic liver resection is technically feasible and safe, and consensus guidelines acknowledge the laparoscopic approach in the posterosuperior segments. Lesions situated in these segments are considered the most challenging for the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this trial is to compare the postoperative time to functional recovery, complications, oncological safety, quality of life, survival and costs after laparoscopic versus open parenchymal-sparing liver resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery setting.

METHODS

The ORANGE Segments trial is an international multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial conducted in centres experienced in laparoscopic liver resection. Eligible patients for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open resections in an enhanced recovery setting. Patients and ward personnel are blinded to the treatment allocation until postoperative day 4 using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative outcomes, length of stay, resection margin, postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, quality of life and overall survival. Laparoscopic liver surgery of the posterosuperior segments is hypothesised to reduce time to functional recovery by 2 days in comparison with open surgery. With a power of 80% and alpha of 0.04 to adjust for interim analysis halfway the trial, a total of 250 patients are required to be randomised.

DISCUSSION

The ORANGE Segments trial is the first multicentre international randomised controlled study to compare short- and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections in the posterosuperior segments within an enhanced recovery programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03270917 . Registered on September 1, 2017. Before start of inclusion.

PROTOCOL VERSION

version 12, May 9, 2017.

Completion pancreatectomy or a pancreas-preserving procedure during relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicentre cohort study and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005-2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

From 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P = 0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24 h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P = 0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Choices of Therapeutic Strategies for Colorectal Liver Metastases Among Expert Liver Surgeons: A Throw of the Dice?

OBJECTIVE

To test the degree of agreement in selecting therapeutic options for patients suffering from colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) among surgical experts around the globe.

SUMMARY/BACKGROUND

Only few areas in medicine have seen so many novel therapeutic options over the past decades as for liver tumors. Significant variations may therefore exist regarding the choices of treatment, even among experts, which may confuse both the medical community and patients.

METHODS

Ten cases of CRLM with different levels of complexity were presented to 43 expert liver surgeons from 23 countries and 4 continents. Experts were defined as experienced surgeons with academic contributions to the field of liver tumors. Experts provided information on their medical education and current practice in liver surgery and transplantation. Using an online platform, they chose their strategy in treating each case from defined multiple choices with added comments. Inter-rater agreement among experts and cases was calculated using free-marginal multirater kappa methodology. A similar, but adjusted survey was presented to 60 general surgeons from Asia, Europe, and North America to test their attitude in treating or referring complex patients to expert centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight (88%) experts completed the evaluation. Most of them are in leading positions (92%) with a median clinical experience of 25 years. Agreement on therapeutic strategies among them was none to minimal in more than half of the cases with kappa varying from 0.00 to 0.39. Many general surgeons may not refer the complex cases to expert centers, including in Europe, where they also engage in complex liver surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable inconsistencies of decision-making exist among expert surgeons when choosing a therapeutic strategy for CRLM. This might confuse both patients and referring physicians and indicate that an international high-level consensus statements and widely accepted guidelines are needed.