Matched comparison between external aortic root support and valve-sparing root replacement

OBJECTIVES

Differences in indication and technique make a randomised comparison between valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) challenging. We performed a propensity score (PS)-matched comparison of PEARS and VSRR for syndromic root aneurysm.

METHODS

Patients in the PEARS 200 Database and Aortic Valve Insufficiency and ascending aorta Aneurysm InternATiOnal Registry (undergoing VSRR) with connective tissue disease operated electively for root aneurysm <60 mm with aortic regurgitation (AR) <1/4 were included. Using a PS analysis, 80 patients in each cohort were matched. Survival, freedom from reintervention and from AR ≥2/4 were estimated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 25 and 55 months for 159 PEARS and 142 VSRR patients. Seven (4.4%) patients undergoing PEARS required an intervention for coronary injury or impingement, resulting in one death (0.6%). After VSRR, there were no early deaths, 10 (7%) reinterventions for bleeding and 1 coronary intervention. Survival for matched cohorts at 5 years was similar (PEARS 98% vs VSRR 99%, p=0.99). There was no difference in freedom from valve or ascending aortic/arch reintervention between matched groups. Freedom from AR ≥2/4 at 5 years in the matched cohorts was 97% for PEARS vs 92% for VSRR (p=0.55). There were no type A dissections.

CONCLUSIONS

VSRR and PEARS offer favourable mid-term survival, freedom from reintervention and preservation of valve function. Both treatments deserve their place in the surgical repertoire, depending on a patient's disease stage. This study is limited by its retrospective nature and different follow-ups in both cohorts.

Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) randomised controlled trial: a systematic review of published responses

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the nature and tone of the published responses to the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Published articles that cited the PulMiCC trial were identified from Clarivate Web of Science (©. Duplicates and self-citations were excluded and relevant text extracted. Four independent researchers rated the extracts independently using agreed scales for the representativeness of trial data and the textual tone. The ratings were aggregated and summarized. Two PulMiCC authors carried out a thematic analysis of the extracts.

RESULTS

Sixty-four citations were identified and relevant text was extracted and examined. The consensus rating for data inclusion was a median of 0.25 out of 6 (range 0 to 5.25, IQR 0-1.5) and for textual tone the median rating was 1.87 out of 6 (range 0 to 5.75, IQR 1-3.5). The majority of citations did not provide adequate representation of the PulMiCC data and the overall the textual tone was dismissive. Although some were supportive, many discounted the findings because the trial closed early and was underpowered to show non-inferiority. Two misinterpreted the authors' conclusions but there was acceptance that five-year survival was much higher than widely assumed.

CONCLUSIONS

Published comments reveal a widespread reluctance to consider seriously the results of a carefully conducted randomized trial. This may be because the results challenge accepted practice because of 'motivated reasoning'. But there is a widespread misunderstanding of the fact that though PulMiCC with 93 patients was underpowered to test non-inferiority, it still provides reliable evidence to undermine the widespread belief in a major survival benefit from metastasectomy.

The full cohort of 512 patients and the nested controlled trial in 93 patients in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) study raise doubts about the effective size at present claimed

A comparison of the relative merits of video-assisted pulmonary metastasectomy versus thoracotomy is predicated on the assumption that removal of asymptomatic lung metastases favourably influences survival and that it does so by a large degree. Recently published but long-awaited evidence from a prospective cohort study and a randomised trial of Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) challenges that assumption.

The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) burden of care study: Analysis of local treatments for lung metastases and systemic chemotherapy in 220 patients in the PulMiCC cohort

AIM

The aim of this work was to examine the burden of further treatments in patients with colorectal cancer following a decision about lung metastasectomy.

METHOD

Five teams participating in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) study provided details on subsequent local treatments for lung metastases, including the use of chemotherapy. For patients in three groups (no metastasectomy, one metastasectomy or multiple local interventions), baseline factors and selection criteria for additional treatments were examined.

RESULTS

The five teams recruited 220 patients between October 2010 and January 2017. No lung metastasectomy was performed in 51 patients, 114 patients had one metastasectomy and 55 patients had multiple local interventions. Selection for initial metastasectomy was associated with nonelevated carcinoembryonic antigen, fewer metastases and no prior liver metastasectomy. These patients also had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores and lung function at baseline. Four sites provided information on chemotherapy in 139 patients: 79 (57%) had one to five courses of chemotherapy, to a total of 179 courses. The patterns of survival after one or multiple metastasectomy interventions showed evidence of guarantee-time bias contributing to an impression of benefit over no metastasectomy. After repeated metastasectomy, a significantly higher risk of death was observed, with no apparent reduction in chemotherapy usage.

CONCLUSION

Repeated metastasectomy is associated with a higher risk of death without reducing the use of chemotherapy. Continued monitoring without surgery might reassure patients with indolent disease or allow response assessment during systemic treatment. Overall, the carefully collected information from the PulMICC study provides no indication of an important survival benefit from metastasectomy.

Personalised external aortic root support for elective treatment of aortic root dilation in 200 patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In personalised external aortic root support (PEARS), a custom-made, macroporous mesh is used to stabilise a dilated aortic root and prevent dissection, primarily in patients with genetically driven aortopathies. Data are needed on the safety and postoperative incidence of aortic events.

METHODS

We present a multicentre cohort study evaluating the first 200 consecutive patients (median age 33 years) undergoing surgery with an intention to perform PEARS for aortic root dilatation in 23 centres between 2004 and 2019. Perioperative outcomes were collected prospectively while clinical follow-up was retrieved retrospectively. Median follow-up was 21.2 months.

RESULTS

The main indication was Marfan syndrome (73.5%) and the most frequent concomitant procedure was mitral valve repair (10%). An intervention for myocardial ischaemia or coronary injury was needed in 11 patients, 1 case resulting in perioperative death. No ascending aortic dissections were observed in 596 documented postoperative patient years. Late reoperation was performed in 3 patients for operator failure to achieve complete mesh coverage. Among patients with at least mild aortic regurgitation (AR) preoperatively, 68% had no or trivial AR at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the clinical history of the first 200 patients to undergo PEARS. To date, aortic dissection has not been observed in the restrained part of the aorta, yet long-term follow-up is needed to confirm the potential of PEARS to prevent dissection. While operative mortality is low, the reported coronary complications reflect the learning curve of aortic root surgery in patients with connective tissue disease. PEARS may stabilise or reduce aortic regurgitation.

The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer cohort study: Analysis of case selection, risk factors and survival in a prospective observational study of 512 patients

AIM

We wanted to examine survival in patients with resected colorectal cancer (CRC) whose lung metastases are or are not resected.

METHODS

Teams participating in the study of Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) identified potential candidates for lung metastasectomy and invited their consent to join Stage 1. Baseline data related to CRC and fitness for surgery were collected. Eligible patients were invited to consent for randomization in the PulMiCC randomized controlled trial (Stage 2). Sites were provided with case report forms for non-randomized patients to record adverse events and death at any time. They were all reviewed at 1 year. Baseline and survival data were analysed for the full cohort.

RESULTS

Twenty-five clinical sites recruited 512 patients from October 2010 to January 2017. Data collection closed in October 2020. Before analysis, 28 patients with non-CRC lung lesions were excluded and three had withdrawn consent leaving 481. The date of death was known for 292 patients, 136 were alive in 2020 and 53 at earlier time points. Baseline factors and 5-year survival were analysed in three strata: 128 non-randomized patients did not have metastasectomy; 263 had elective metastasectomy; 90 were from the randomized trial. The proportions of solitary metastases for electively operated and non-operated patients were 69% and 35%. Their respective 5-year survivals were 47% and 22%.

CONCLUSION

Survival without metastasectomy was greater than widely presumed. Difference in survival appeared to be largely related to selection. No inference can be drawn about the effect of metastasectomy on survival in this observational study.

National variation in pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer

AIM

Evidence on patterns of use of pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer patients is limited. This population-based study aims to investigate the use of pulmonary metastasectomy in the colorectal cancer population across the English National Health Service (NHS) and quantify the extent of any variations in practice and outcome.

METHODS

All adults who underwent a major resection for colorectal cancer in an NHS hospital between 2005 and 2013 were identified in the COloRECTal cancer data Repository (CORECT-R). All inpatient episodes corresponding to pulmonary metastasectomy, occurring within 3 years of the initial colorectal resection, were identified. Multi-level logistic regression was used to determine patient and organizational factors associated with the use of pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer, and Kaplan-Meier and Cox models were used to assess survival following pulmonary metastasectomy.

RESULTS

In all, 173 354 individuals had a major colorectal resection over the study period, with 3434 (2.0%) undergoing pulmonary resection within 3 years. The frequency of pulmonary metastasectomy increased from 1.2% of patients undergoing major colorectal resection in 2005 to 2.3% in 2013. Significant variation was observed across hospital providers in the risk-adjusted rates of pulmonary metastasectomy (0.0%-6.8% of patients). Overall 5-year survival following pulmonary resection was 50.8%, with 30-day and 90-day mortality of 0.6% and 1.2% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows significant variation in the rates of pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer across the English NHS.

Pulmonary metastasectomy: limits to credibility

Lung metastases are a common site of spread for many malignant tumours. Pulmonary metastasectomy has been practiced for many years for sarcomas and is now becoming increasingly frequently advocated for patients with many other tumours, especially colorectal cancer. In this article we argue that this procedure is one framed by therapeutic opportunity and not supported by strong evidence. It is potentially harmful and may not be effective. Our argument is based on several important issues: (I) the vagueness of the concept of “oligometastases” and its biological implausibility; (II) the flaws in the often-cited observational evidence, especially selection bias; (III) the lack of any reliable randomised trial evidence of improved survival but evidence of harm; (IV) the failure of strategies to detect metastases earlier to influence overall survival. The introduction of stereotactic radiotherapy and image-guided thermal ablation have made the urge to treat lung metastases stronger but without any good evidence to justify their use. We acknowledge the problems of carrying out randomised trials when there is a clear lack of equipoise in the clinical teams involved but believe that there is an ethical need to do so. Many patients are probably being given false hope of cure or prolonged survival but are at risk of harm from pulmonary metastasectomy or ablation. It is possible that a few patients may benefit but without better evidence we do not know which, if any, do.

Randomised Controlled Trial Evidence Questions the Assumption that Pulmonary Metastasectomy Benefits Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Pulmonary metastasectomy for sarcoma is surgery without proven benefit, and in the light of a randomized controlled trial examining pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer, it should be questioned.

Pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: health utility scores by EQ-5D-3L in a randomized controlled trial show no benefit from lung metastasectomy

AIM

The aim was to assess the health utility of lung metastasectomy in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.

METHODS

Multidisciplinary CRC teams at 14 sites recruited patients to a two-arm randomized controlled trial-Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC). Remote randomization was used, stratified by site and with minimization for seven known confounders. Participants completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire together with other patient reported outcome measures at randomization and then again at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. These were returned by post to the coordinating centre.

RESULTS

Between December 2010 and December 2016, 93 participants were randomized, 91 of whom returned questionnaires. Survival and patient reported quality of life have been published previously, revealing no significant differences between the trial arms. Described here are patient reported data from the five dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L and the visual analogue scale (VAS) health state. No significant difference was seen at any time point. The estimated difference between control and metastasectomy patients was -0.23 (95% CI -0.113, 0.066) for the composite 0 to 1 index scale based on the descriptive system and 0.123 (95% CI -7.24, 7.49) for the 0 to 100 VAS scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Following lung metastasectomy for CRC, no benefit was demonstrated for health utility, which alongside a lack of a survival or quality of life benefit calls into question the widespread use of the procedure.

Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer: updated analysis of 93 randomized patients - control survival is much better than previously assumed

AIM

Lung metastases from colorectal cancer are resected in selected patients in the belief that this confers a significant survival advantage. It is generally assumed that the 5-year survival of these patients would be near zero without metastasectomy. We tested the clinical effectiveness of this practice in Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC), a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial.

METHOD

Multidisciplinary teams in 14 hospitals recruited patients with resectable lung metastases into a two-arm trial. Randomization was remote and stratified according to site, with minimization for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, number of metastases and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The trial management group was blind to patient allocation until after intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2016, 93 participants were randomized. These patients were 35-86 years of age and had between one and six lung metastases at a median of 2.7 years after colorectal cancer resection; 29% had prior liver metastasectomy. The patient groups were well matched and the characteristics of these groups were similar to those of observational studies. The median survival after metastasectomy was 3.5 (95% CI: 3.1-6.6) years compared with 3.8 (95% CI: 3.1-4.6) years for controls. The estimated unadjusted hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing the metastasectomy group with the control group, was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56-1.56). Use of chemotherapy or local ablation was infrequent and similar in each group.

CONCLUSION

Patients in the control group (who did not undergo lung metastasectomy) have better survival than is assumed. Survival in the metastasectomy group is comparable with the many single-arm follow-up studies. The groups were well matched with features similar to those reported in case series.

Personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) to stabilise an aortic root aneurysm

Patients with congenitally determined aortic root aneurysms are at risk of aortic valve regurgitation, aortic dissection, rupture and death. Personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) may provide an alternative to aortic root replacement. This was a multi-centre, prospective cohort of all consecutive patients who received ExoVasc mesh implants for a dilated aortic root between 2004 and 2017. Baseline and peri-operative characteristics, as well as early postoperative outcomes are described, and time-related survival and re-operation free survival are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. From 2004 through 2017, 117 consecutive patients have received ExoVasc mesh implants for aortic root aneurysm. The inclusion criteria were an aortic root/sinus of Valsalva and ascending aorta with asymptomatic dilatation of between 40 and 50 mm in diameter in patients aged 16 years or more. Patients with more than mild aortic regurgitation were excluded. There was one early death. The length of stay was within seven days in 75% of patients. In conclusion, the operation achieves the objectives of valve-sparing root replacement. PEARS may be seen as a low-risk conservative operation, which can be applied earlier on in the disease process, and which is complementary to more invasive procedures, such as valve-sparing root replacement or total root replacement.