H. Thorpe

Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection of Colorectal Carcinoma: 3-Year Results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group

PURPOSE The aim of the current study is to report the long-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC trial. Results from randomized trials have indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term. Few data are available on rectal cancer, and long-term data on survival and recurrence are now required. METHODS The United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC; clinical trials number ISRCTN 74883561) trial study comparing conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with cancer of the colon and rectum. The randomization ratio was 2:1 in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], local recurrence, and quality of life [QoL]) have now been determined on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS Seven hundred ninety-four patients were recruited (526 laparoscopic and 268 open). Overall, there were no differences in the long-term outcomes. The differences in survival rates were OS of 1.8% (95% CI, -5.2% to 8.8%; P = .55), DFS of -1.4% (95% CI, -9.5% to 6.7%; P = .70), local recurrence of -0.8% (95% CI, -5.7% to 4.2%; P = .76), and QoL (P > .01 for all scales). Higher positivity of the circumferential resection margin was reported after laparoscopic anterior resection (AR), but it did not translate into an increased incidence of local recurrence. CONCLUSION Successful laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in terms of oncological outcomes and preservation of QoL. Long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer were similar in those undergoing abdominoperineal resection and AR, and support the continued use of laparoscopic surgery in these patients.

Five‐year follow‐up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer

The UK Medical Research Council CLASICC trial assessed the safety and efficacy of laparoscopically assisted surgery in comparison with open surgery for colorectal cancer. The results of the 5‐year follow‐up analysis are presented.

Bladder and sexual function following resection for rectal cancer in a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open technique.

Bladder and sexual dysfunction are recognized complications of mesorectal resection. Their incidence following laparoscopic surgery is unknown.

The effects of adding zoledronic acid to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on tumour response: exploratory evidence for direct anti-tumour activity in breast cancer

Background:Pre-clinical studies have demonstrated synergistic anti-tumour effects of chemotherapy (CT) and zoledronic acid (ZOL). Within the AZURE trial, designed to determine whether the addition of ZOL to neoadjuvant therapy improves disease outcomes, a subgroup received neoadjuvant CT. We report a retrospective evaluation comparing pathological response in the primary tumour between treatment groups.Methods:In total, 205 patients received neoadjuvant CT±ZOL (CT+ZOL, n=102; CT, n=103). The primary end point was pathologically assessed residual invasive tumour size (RITS) at surgery. Secondary end points were pathological complete response (pCR) rate and axillary nodal involvement. Following review of surgical pathology reports (n=195), outcome differences between groups were assessed adjusting for potential response modifiers.Results:Baseline characteristics and CT treatments were similar. In multivariate analysis, allowing for biological and clinical factors known to influence tumour response, the adjusted mean RITS in CT and CT+ZOL groups were 27.4 and 15.5 mm, respectively, giving a difference in means of 12 mm (95% confidence interval: 3.5–20.4 mm; P=0.006). The pCR rate was 6.9% in the CT group and 11.7% in the CT+ZOL group (P=0.146). There was no difference in axillary nodal involvement (P=0.6315).Conclusion:These data suggest a possible direct anti-tumour effect of ZOL in combination with CT, warranting formal evaluation in prospective studies.

Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life

Background: In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. Methods: The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364). Results: 65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival. Conclusions: The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices.

Adhesions and incisional hernias following laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer in the CLASICC trial

This study investigated adhesive intestinal obstruction (AIO) and incisional hernia (IH) in patients undergoing laparoscopically assisted and open surgery for colorectal cancer.

Patient factors influencing conversion from laparoscopically assisted to open surgery for colorectal cancer

Intraoperative conversion from laparoscopically assisted to open surgery for colorectal cancer is thought to be influenced by several patient factors. Analysis of the Conventional versus Laparoscopic‐Assisted Surgery In Colorectal Cancer (CLASICC) Trial data aimed to identify these risk factors.

Short-term costs of conventional vs laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial)

The short-term clinical results of the CLASICC trial indicated that clinical outcomes were similar between laparoscopic and open approaches. This study presents the short-term (3 month) cost analysis undertaken on a subset of patients entered into the CLASICC trial (682 of 794 patients). As expected the costs associated with the operation were higher in the 452 patients randomised to laparoscopic surgery (lap) compared with the 230 randomised to open procedure (open), £1703 vs £1386. This was partially offset by the other hospital (nontheatre) costs, which were lower in the lap group (£2930 vs £3176). The average cost to individuals for reoperations was higher in the lap group (£762 vs £553). Overall costs were slightly higher in the lap group (£6899 vs £6631), with mean difference of £268 (95%CI −689 to 1457). Sensitivity analysis made little difference to these results. The cost of rectal surgery was higher than for colon, for lap (£8259 vs £5586) and open procedures (£7820 vs £5503). The short-term cost analysis for the CLASICC trial indicates that the costs of either laparoscopic or open procedure were similar, lap surgery costing marginally more on average than open surgery.

Assessment of quality of life in the supportive care setting of the big lung trial in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE The Big Lung Trial (BLT) was a large, pragmatic trial to evaluate the addition of chemotherapy to primary treatment (ie, surgery, radical radiotherapy, or supportive care) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the supportive care group, there was a small but significant survival benefit in patients treated with chemotherapy compared with supportive care alone (no chemotherapy). A substudy was undertaken to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) implications of the treatment options. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 (QLQ-C30) and LC17, and daily diary cards. PATIENTS AND METHODS EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC17 were collected at 0, 6 to 8, 12, 18, and 24 weeks. Diary cards were completed during the first 12 weeks of the study. The primary end point was global QoL at 12 weeks. RESULTS A total of 273 patients were randomly assigned: 138 to no chemotherapy and 135 to chemotherapy. There was no evidence of a large detrimental effect on QoL of chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in global QoL or physical/emotional functioning, fatigue and dyspnea, and pain were detected at 12 weeks. Higher rates of palliative radiotherapy in the no chemotherapy arm may have lessened differences in QoL. Global QoL, role functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, and constipation were prognostic indicators of survival at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION There were no important adverse effects of chemotherapy on QoL.

Comparison of treatment and outcome information between a clinical trial and the National Cancer Data Repository

Clinical trials are important but many factors limit their success, including the costs of long‐term follow‐up and participants often not being representative of the general population. The National Cancer Data Repository (NCDR) contains data about patients with cancer in England that may help overcome some of these problems. This study compared treatment and outcome information between the Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic‐Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (CLASICC) trial and the NCDR.