Comparison of the collagen haemostat Sangustop(R) versus a carrier-bound fibrin sealant during liver resection; ESSCALIVER-study

Background: Haemostasis in liver surgery remains a challenge despite improved resection techniques. Oozing from blood vessels too small to be ligated necessitate a treatment with haemostats in order to prevent complications attributed to bleeding. There is good evidence from randomised trials for the efficacy of fibrin sealants, on their own or in combination with a carrier material. A new haemostatic device is Sangustop(R). It is a collagen based material without any coagulation factors. Pre-clinical data for Sangustop(R) showed superior haemostatic effect. This present study aims to show that in the clinical situation Sangustop(R) is not inferior to a carrier-bound fibrin sealant (Tachosil(R)) as a haemostatic treatment in hepatic resection. Methods: This is a multi-centre, patient-blinded, intra-operatively randomised controlled trial. A total of 126 patients planned for an elective liver resection will be enrolled in eight surgical centres. The primary objective of this study is to show the non-inferiority of Sangustop(R) versus a carrier-bound fibrin sealant (Tachosil(R)) in achieving haemostasis after hepatic resection. The surgical intervention is standardised with regard to devices and techniques used for resection and primary haemostasis. Patients will be followed-up for three months for complications and adverse events. Discussion: This randomised controlled trial (ESSCALIVER) aims to compare the new collagen haemostat Sangustop(R) with a carrier-bound fibrin sealant which can be seen as a "gold standard" in hepatic and other visceral organ surgery. If non-inferiority is shown other criteria than the haemostatic efficacy (e.g. costs, adverse events rate) may be considered for the choice of the most appropriate treatment. Trial Registration: NCT0091861

Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 Randomized Phase 2 Trial: Early Surrogate Endpoints Revisited

Background: Early efficacy outcome measures in rectal cancer after total neoadjuvant treatment are increasingly investigated. We examined the prognostic role of pathological complete response (pCR), tumor regression grading (TRG) and neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score for disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with rectal carcinoma treated within the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 randomized phase 2 trial. Methods: Distribution of pCR, TRG and NAR score was analyzed using the Pearson’s chi-squared test. Univariable analyses were performed using the log-rank test, stratified by treatment arm. Discrimination ability of non-pCR for DFS was assessed by analyzing the ROC curve as a function of time. Results: Of the 311 patients enrolled, 306 patients were evaluable (Arm A:156, ArmB:150). After a median follow-up of 43 months, the 3-year DFS was 73% in both groups (HR, 0.95, 95% CI, 0.63–1.45, p = 0.82). pCR tended to be higher in Arm B (17% vs. 25%, p = 0.086). In both treatment arms, pCR, TRG and NAR were significant prognostic factors for DFS, whereas survival in subgroups defined by pCR, TRG or NAR did not significantly differ between the treatment arms. The discrimination ability of non-pCR for DFS remained constant over time (C-Index 0.58) but was slightly better in Arm B (0.61 vs. 0.56). Conclusion: Although pCR, TRG and NAR were strong prognostic factors for DFS in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial, their value in selecting one TNT approach over another could not be confirmed. Hence, the conclusion of a long-term survival benefit of one treatment arm based on early surrogate endpoints should be stated with caution

Long-term, Prolonged-release Tacrolimus-based Immunosuppression in De Novo Liver Transplant Recipients : 5-year Prospective Follow-up of Patients in the DIAMOND Study

Background. Immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) is reportedly associated with risk of renal impairment in liver transplant recipients. It is believed that this can be mitigated by decreasing initial exposure to CNIs or delaying CNI introduction until 3-4 d posttransplantation. The ADVAGRAF studied in combination with mycophenolate mofetil and basili ximab in liver transplantation (DIAMOND) trial evaluated different administration strategies for prolonged-release tacrolimus (PR-T). Methods. DIAMOND was a 24-wk, open-label, phase 3b trial in de novo liver transplant recipients randomized to: PR-T 0.2 mg/kg/d (Arm 1); PR-T 0.15-0.175 mg/kg/d plus basiliximab (Arm 2); or PR-T 0.2 mg/kg/d delayed until day 5 posttransplant plus basiliximab (Arm 3). In a 5-y follow-up, patients were maintained on an immunosuppressive regimen according to standard clinical practice (NCT02057484). Primary endpoint: graft survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis). Results. Follow-up study included 856 patients. Overall graft survival was 84.6% and 73.5% at 1 and 5 y post transplant, respectively. Five-year rates for Arms 1, 2, and 3 were 74.7%, 71.5%, and 74.5%, respectively. At 5 y, death-censored graft survival in the entire cohort was 74,7%. Overall graft survival in patients remaining on PR-T for z30 d was 79.1%. Graft survival in patients who remained on PR-T at 5 y was 87.3%. Patient survival was 86.6% at 1 y and 76.3% at 5 y, with survival rates similar in the 3 treatment arms at 5 y. Estimated glomerular filtration rate at the end of the 24-wk initial study and 5 y posttransplant was 62.1 and 61.5 mi./min/1.73 m(2), respectively, and was similar between the 3 treatment arms at 5 y. Overall, 18 (2.9%) patients had z1 adverse drug reaction, considered possibly related to PR-T in 6 patients. Conclusions. In the DIAMOND study patient cohort, renal function, graft survival, and patient survival were similar between treatment arms at 5 y posttransplant.Peer reviewe

Evidence-Based Medicine in Daily Surgical Decision Making: A Survey-Based Comparison between the UK and Germany

Background: Evidence-based medicine (EbM) is a vital part of reasonable and conclusive decision making for clinicians in daily clinical work. To analyze the knowledge and the attitude of surgeons towards EbM, a survey was performed in the UK and Germany. Methods: A web-based questionnaire was distributed via mailing lists from the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Chirurgen (BDC). Our primary aim was to get information about knowledge of EbM amongst German and British surgeons. Results: A total of 549 individuals opened the questionnaire, but only 198 questionnaires were complete and valid for analysis. In total, 40,000 recipients were approached via the mailing lists of the BDC and RCSE. The response rate was equally low in both countries. On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 10 (very important), all participants rated EbM as very important for daily clinical decision making (7.3 ± 1.9) as well as for patients (7.8 ± 1.9) and the national health system (7.8 ± 1.9). On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important), systematic reviews (4.6 ± 0.6) and randomized controlled trials (4.6 ± 0.6) were identified as the highest levels of study designs to enhance evidence in medicine. British surgeons considered EbM to be more important in daily clinical work when compared to data from German surgeons (7.9 ± 1.6 vs. 6.7 ± 2.1, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed different results in some categories; however, a pattern to explain the differences was not evident. Personal requirements expressed in a free text field emphasized the results and reflected concerns such as broad unwillingness and lack of interdisciplinary approaches for patients (n = 59: 25 in the UK and 34 in Germany). Conclusion: The overall results show that EbM is believed to be important by surgeons in the UK and Germany. However, perception of EbM in the respective health system (UK vs. Germany) may be different. Nonetheless, EbM is an important tool to navigate through daily clinical problems although a discrepancy between the knowledge of theoretical abstract terms and difficulties in implementing EbM in daily clinical work has been detected. The provision of infrastructure, courses and structured education as a permanent instrument will advance the knowledge, application and improvement of EbM in the future

A prospective randomised, open-labeled, trial comparing sirolimus-containing versus mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppression in patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The potential anti-cancer effects of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are being intensively studied. To date, however, few randomised clinical trials (RCT) have been performed to demonstrate anti-neoplastic effects in the pure oncology setting, and at present, no oncology endpoint-directed RCT has been reported in the high-malignancy risk population of immunosuppressed transplant recipients. Interestingly, since mTOR inhibitors have both immunosuppressive and anti-cancer effects, they have the potential to simultaneously protect against immunologic graft loss and tumour development. Therefore, we designed a prospective RCT to determine if the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus can improve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-free patient survival in liver transplant (LT) recipients with a pre-transplant diagnosis of HCC.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The study is an open-labelled, randomised, RCT comparing sirolimus-containing versus mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppression in patients undergoing LT for HCC. Patients with a histologically confirmed HCC diagnosis are randomised into 2 groups within 4-6 weeks after LT; one arm is maintained on a centre-specific mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppressive protocol and the second arm is maintained on a centre-specific mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppressive protocol for the first 4-6 weeks, at which time sirolimus is initiated. A 2^1/2 -year recruitment phase is planned with a 5-year follow-up, testing HCC-free survival as the primary endpoint. Our hypothesis is that sirolimus use in the second arm of the study will improve HCC-free survival. The study is a non-commercial investigator-initiated trial (IIT) sponsored by the University Hospital Regensburg and is endorsed by the European Liver and Intestine Transplant Association; 13 countries within Europe, Canada and Australia are participating.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If our hypothesis is correct that mTOR inhibition can reduce HCC tumour growth while simultaneously providing immunosuppression to protect the liver allograft from rejection, patients should experience less post-transplant problems with HCC recurrence, and therefore could expect a longer and better quality of life. A positive outcome will likely change the standard of posttransplant immunosuppressive care for LT patients with HCC.</p> <p>Trial Register</p> <p>Trial registered at <url>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov</url>: NCT00355862</p> <p>(EudraCT Number: 2005-005362-36)</p

A toolbox for a structured risk-based prehabilitation program in major surgical oncology

Prehabilitation is a multimodal concept to improve functional capability prior to surgery, so that the patients’ resilience is strengthened to withstand any peri- and postoperative comorbidity. It covers physical activities, nutrition, and psychosocial wellbeing. The literature is heterogeneous in outcomes and definitions. In this scoping review, class 1 and 2 evidence was included to identify seven main aspects of prehabilitation for the treatment pathway: (i) risk assessment, (ii) FITT (frequency, interventions, time, type of exercise) principles of prehabilitation exercise, (iii) outcome measures, (iv) nutrition, (v) patient blood management, (vi) mental wellbeing, and (vii) economic potential. Recommendations include the risk of tumor progression due to delay of surgery. Patients undergoing prehabilitation should perceive risk assessment by structured, quantifiable, and validated tools like Risk Analysis Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), American Society of Anesthesiology Score, or Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group scoring. Assessments should be repeated to quantify its effects. The most common types of exercise include breathing exercises and moderate- to high-intensity interval protocols. The program should have a duration of 3–6 weeks with 3–4 exercises per week that take 30–60 min. The 6-Minute Walking Testing is a valid and resource-saving tool to assess changes in aerobic capacity. Long-term assessment should include standardized outcome measurements (overall survival, 90-day survival, Dindo–Clavien/CCI®) to monitor the potential of up to 50% less morbidity. Finally, individual cost-revenue assessment can help assess health economics, confirming the hypothetic saving of $8 for treatment for$1 spent for prehabilitation. These recommendations should serve as a toolbox to generate hypotheses, discussion, and systematic approaches to develop clinical prehabilitation standards

HCC recurrence in HCV-infected patients after liver transplantation: SiLVER Study reveals benefits of sirolimus in combination with CNIs - a post-hoc analysis

Factors affecting outcomes in liver transplant (LTx) recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection include the choice of immunosuppression. Here, we analyzed the HCV+ subgroup of patients from the randomized controlled, international SiLVER Study. We performed a post hoc analysis of 166 HCV+ SiLVER Study patients regarding HCC outcome after LTx. Control patients (group A: n&nbsp;=&nbsp;88) received mTOR inhibitor (mTORi)-free, calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based versus sirolimus-based immunosuppression (group B: n&nbsp;=&nbsp;78). We found no significant difference regarding HCV-RNA titers between group A and B. Since no effect in group B could be due to variable sirolimus dosing, we split group B into patients receiving sirolimus-based immunosuppression&nbsp;+&nbsp;CNIs for &gt;50% (B1; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;44) or &lt;50% (B2; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;34) of the time. While there remained no difference in HCV-RNA titer between groups, HCC recurrence-free survival in group B1 (81.8%) was markedly better versus both group A (62.7%; P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.0136) and group B2 (64.7%; P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.0326); Interestingly, further subgroup analysis revealed an increase (P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.0012) in liver enzyme values in group B2. Taken together, in HCV-infected patients with HCC and LTx, mTORi immunosuppression&nbsp;+&nbsp;CNIs yields excellent outcomes. Unexpectedly, higher levels of liver inflammation and poorer outcomes occur with mTORi monotherapy in the HCV+ subgroup

A prospective randomised, open-labeled, trial comparing sirolimus-containing versus mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppression in patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Peer reviewe

Sirolimus Use in Liver Transplant Recipients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma : A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Phase 3 Trial

Background We investigated whether sirolimus-based immunosuppression improves outcomes in liver transplantation (LTx) candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods In a prospective-randomized open-label international trial, 525 LTx recipients with HCC initially receiving mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-free immunosuppression were randomized 4 to 6 weeks after transplantation into a group on mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-free immunosuppression (group A: 264 patients) or a group incorporating sirolimus (group B: 261). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS); intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted after 8 years. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Results Recurrence-free survival was 64.5% in group A and 70.2% in group B at study end, this difference was not significant (P = 0.28; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.62; 1.15). In a planned analysis of RFS rates at yearly intervals, group B showed better outcomes 3 years after transplantation (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.48-1.00). Similarly, OS (P = 0.21; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.58-1.13) was not statistically better in group B at study end, but yearly analyses showed improvement out to 5 years (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00). Interestingly, subgroup (Milan Criteria-based) analyses revealed that low-risk, rather than high-risk, patients benefited most from sirolimus; furthermore, younger recipients (age 60) also benefited, as well sirolimus monotherapy patients. Serious adverse event numbers were alike in groups A (860) and B (874). Conclusions Sirolimus in LTx recipients with HCC does not improve long-term RFS beyond 5 years. However, a RFS and OS benefit is evident in the first 3 to 5 years, especially in low-risk patients. This trial provides the first high-level evidence base for selecting immunosuppression in LTx recipients with HCC.Peer reviewe

CMS physics technical design report : Addendum on high density QCD with heavy ions

Peer reviewe