Development of a Reliable Surgical Quality Assurance System for 2-stage Esophagectomy in Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: The aim was to develop a reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy. This development was conducted during the pilot phase of the multicenter ROMIO trial, collaborating with international experts. Summary of Background Data: There is evidence that the quality of surgical performance in randomized controlled trials influences clinical outcomes, quality of lymphadenectomy and loco-regional recurrence. Methods: Standardization of 2-stage esophagectomy was based on structured observations, semi-structured interviews, hierarchical task analysis, and a Delphi consensus process. This standardization provided the structure for the operation manual and video and photographic assessment tools. Reliability was examined using generalizability theory. Results: Hierarchical task analysis for 2-stage esophagectomy comprised fifty-four steps. Consensus (75%) agreement was reached on thirty-nine steps, whereas fifteen steps had a majority decision. An operation manual and record were created. A thirty five-item video assessment tool was developed that assessed the process (safety and efficiency) and quality of the end product (anatomy exposed and lymphadenectomy performed) of the operation. The quality of the end product section was used as a twenty seven-item photographic assessment tool. Thirty-one videos and fifty-three photographic series were submitted from the ROMIO pilot phase for assessment. The overall Gcoefficient for the video assessment tool was 0.744, and for the photographic assessment tool was 0.700. Conclusions: A reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy has been developed for surgical oncology randomized controlled trials

PaLM 2 Technical Report

We introduce PaLM 2, a new state-of-the-art language model that has better multilingual and reasoning capabilities and is more compute-efficient than its predecessor PaLM. PaLM 2 is a Transformer-based model trained using a mixture of objectives. Through extensive evaluations on English and multilingual language, and reasoning tasks, we demonstrate that PaLM 2 has significantly improved quality on downstream tasks across different model sizes, while simultaneously exhibiting faster and more efficient inference compared to PaLM. This improved efficiency enables broader deployment while also allowing the model to respond faster, for a more natural pace of interaction. PaLM 2 demonstrates robust reasoning capabilities exemplified by large improvements over PaLM on BIG-Bench and other reasoning tasks. PaLM 2 exhibits stable performance on a suite of responsible AI evaluations, and enables inference-time control over toxicity without additional overhead or impact on other capabilities. Overall, PaLM 2 achieves state-of-the-art performance across a diverse set of tasks and capabilities. When discussing the PaLM 2 family, it is important to distinguish between pre-trained models (of various sizes), fine-tuned variants of these models, and the user-facing products that use these models. In particular, user-facing products typically include additional pre- and post-processing steps. Additionally, the underlying models may evolve over time. Therefore, one should not expect the performance of user-facing products to exactly match the results reported in this report

Protocol for developing quality assurance measures to use in surgical trials:an example from the ROMIO study

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are frequently criticised because surgeon expertise and standards of surgery are not considered or accounted for during study design. This is particularly true in pragmatic trials (which typically involve multiple centres and surgeons and are based in 'real world' settings), compared with explanatory trials (which are smaller and more tightly controlled).OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes a process to develop and test quality assurance (QA) measures for use within a predominantly pragmatic surgical RCT comparing minimally invasive and open techniques for oesophageal cancer (the NIHR ROMIO study). It builds on methods initiated in the ROMIO pilot RCT.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have identified three distinct types of QA measure: (i) entry criteria for surgeons, through assessment of operative videos, (ii) standardisation of operative techniques (by establishing minimum key procedural phases) and (iii) monitoring of surgeons during the trial, using intraoperative photography to document key procedural phases and standardising the pathological assessment of specimens. The QA measures will be adapted from the pilot study and tested iteratively, and the video and photo assessment tools will be tested for reliability and validity.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained (NRES Committee South West-Frenchay, 25 April 2016, ref: 16/SW/0098). Results of the QA development study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration number: ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.</p

The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI) on recruitment in challenging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have applied the intervention. The QRI aims to understand recruitment difficulties, and then implements ‘QRI-actions’ to address these as recruitment proceeds.Study Design and SettingA mixed-methods study, comprising: a) before-and-after comparisons of recruitment rates and numbers of patients approached, and b) qualitative case studies, including documentary analysis and interviews with RCT investigators.ResultsFive UK-based publicly-funded RCTs were included in the evaluation. All recruited to target. RCT2 and RCT5 both received up-front pre-recruitment training before the intervention was applied. RCT2 did not encounter recruitment issues and recruited above target from its outset. Recruitment difficulties, particularly communication issues, were identified and addressed through QRI-actions in RCTs 1, 3, 4 and 5. Randomization rates significantly improved post-QRI-action in RCTs 1,3, and 4. QRI-actions addressed issues with approaching eligible patients in RCTs 3 and 5, which both saw significant increases in patients approached. Trial investigators reported that the QRI had unearthed issues they had been unaware of, and reportedly changed their practices post QRI-action.ConclusionThere is promising evidence to suggest the QRI can support recruitment to difficult RCTs. This needs to be substantiated with future controlled evaluations

Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial

Background: Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6–9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery. Objectives: The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches. Design: Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work. Setting: Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Interventions: Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited. Results: During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%). Conclusions: Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information