Julie Croft

Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy. Objective To compare robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial comparing robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among 471 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection conducted at 29 sites across 10 countries, including 40 surgeons. Recruitment of patients was from January 7, 2011, to September 30, 2014, follow-up was conducted at 30 days and 6 months, and final follow-up was on June 16, 2015. Interventions Patients were randomized to robotic-assisted (n = 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by either high (upper rectum) or low (total rectum) anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection (rectum and perineum). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was conversion to open laparotomy. Secondary end points included intraoperative and postoperative complications, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+) and other pathological outcomes, quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey and 20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), bladder and sexual dysfunction (International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index), and oncological outcomes. Results Among 471 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [11.0] years; 320 [67.9%] men), 466 (98.9%) completed the study. The overall rate of conversion to open laparotomy was 10.1%: 19 of 236 patients (8.1%) in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group and 28 of 230 patients (12.2%) in the conventional laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 4.1% [95% CI, −1.4% to 9.6%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.31 to 1.21]; P = .16). The overall CRM+ rate was 5.7%; CRM+ occurred in 14 (6.3%) of 224 patients in the conventional laparoscopic group and 12 (5.1%) of 235 patients in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 1.1% [95% CI, −3.1% to 5.4%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.76]; P = .56). Of the other 8 reported prespecified secondary end points, including intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, plane of surgery, 30-day mortality, bladder dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, as compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy. These findings suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, when performed by surgeons with varying experience with robotic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN80500123

IntAct: intra-operative fluorescence angiography to prevent anastomotic leak in rectal cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a major complication of rectal cancer surgery. Despite advances in surgical practice, the rates of AL have remained static, at around 10–15%. The aetiology of AL is multifactorial, but one of the most crucial risk factors, which is mostly under the control of the surgeon, is blood supply to the anastomosis. The MRC/NIHR IntAct study will determine whether assessment of anastomotic perfusion using a fluorescent dye (indocyanine green) and near‐infrared laparoscopy can minimize the rate of AL leak compared with conventional white‐light laparoscopy. Two mechanistic sub‐studies will explore the role of the rectal microbiome in AL and the predictive value of CT angiography/perfusion studies.

Exploring and adjusting for potential learning effects in ROLARR: a randomised controlled trial comparing robotic-assisted vs. standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection

BackgroundCommonly in surgical randomised controlled trials (RCT) the experimental treatment is a relatively new technique which the surgeons may still be learning, while the control is a well-established standard. This can lead to biased comparisons between treatments. In this paper we discuss the implementation of approaches for addressing this issue in the ROLARR trial, and points of consideration for future surgical trials.MethodsROLARR was an international, randomised, parallel-group trial comparing robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was conversion to open surgery (binary). A surgeon inclusion criterion mandating a minimum level of experience in each technique was incorporated. Additionally, surgeon self-reported data were collected periodically throughout the trial to capture the level of experience of every participating surgeon.Multi-level logistic regression adjusting for operating surgeon as a random effect is used to estimate the odds ratio for conversion to open surgery between the treatment groups. We present and contrast the results from the primary analysis, which did not account for learning effects, and a sensitivity analysis which did.ResultsThe primary analysis yields an estimated odds ratio (robotic/laparoscopic) of 0.614 (95% CI 0.311, 1.211; p = 0.16), providing insufficient evidence to conclude superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic in terms of the risk of conversion to open.The sensitivity analysis reveals that while participating surgeons in ROLARR were expert at laparoscopic surgery, some, if not all, were still learning robotic surgery. The treatment-effect odds ratio decreases by a factor of 0.341 (95% CI 0.121, 0.960; p = 0.042) per unit increase in log-number of previous robotic operations performed by the operating surgeon. The odds ratio for a patient whose operating surgeon has the mean experience level in ROLARR – 152.46 previous laparoscopic, 67.93 previous robotic operations – is 0.40 (95% CI 0.168, 0.953; p = 0.039).ConclusionsIn this paper we have demonstrated the implementation of approaches for accounting for learning in a practical example of a surgery RCT analysis. The results demonstrate the value of implementing such approaches, since we have shown that without them the ROLARR analysis would indeed have been confounded by the learning effects.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, ID: ISRCTN80500123. Registered on 27 May 2010.

Liver resection surgery versus thermal ablation for colorectal LiVer MetAstases (LAVA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

AbstractBackgroundAlthough surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases (CLM), thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. A prospective randomised trial is required to define the efficacy of resection vs ablation for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases.MethodsDesign and setting: This is a multicentre, open, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial design with internal pilot and will be performed in tertiary liver centres in UK and The Netherlands.Participants: Eligible patients will be those with colorectal liver metastases at high surgical risk because of their age, co-morbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation.Intervention: Thermal ablation as per local policy.Control: Surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol.Co-interventions: Further chemotherapy will be offered to patients as per current practice. Outcomes Pilot study: Same as main study and in addition patients and clinicians’ acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment.Primary outcome: Disease-free survival (DFS) at two years post randomisation.Secondary outcomes: Overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, DFS measured from end of intervention.Follow-up: 24 months from randomisation; five-year follow-up for overall survival.Sample size: 330 patients to demonstrate non-inferiority of thermal ablation.DiscussionThis trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation vs surgical resection for high-risk people with colorectal liver metastases, and guide the optimal treatment for these patients.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN52040363. Registered on 9 March 2016.