Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial - the MIRO trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Open transthoracic oesophagectomy is the standard treatment for infracarinal resectable oesophageal carcinomas, although it is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates of 2 to 10% and 30 to 50%, respectively, for both the abdominal and thoracic approaches. The worldwide popularity of laparoscopic techniques is based on promising results, including lower postoperative morbidity rates, which are related to the reduced postoperative trauma. We hypothesise that the laparoscopic abdominal approach (laparoscopic gastric mobilisation) in oesophageal cancer surgery will decrease the major postoperative complication rate due to the reduced surgical trauma.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The MIRO trial is an open, controlled, prospective, randomised multicentre phase III trial. Patients in study arm A will receive laparoscopic-assisted oesophagectomy, i.e., a transthoracic oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and laparoscopic gastric mobilisation. Patients in study arm B will receive the same procedure, but with the conventional open abdominal approach. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the major postoperative 30-day morbidity. Secondary objectives are to assess the overall 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, 30-day pulmonary morbidity, disease-free survival, overall survival as well as quality of life and to perform medico-economic analysis. A total of 200 patients will be enrolled, and two safety analyses will be performed using 25 and 50 patients included in arm A.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Postoperative morbidity remains high after oesophageal cancer surgery, especially due to major pulmonary complications, which are responsible for 50% of the postoperative deaths. This study represents the first randomised controlled phase III trial to evaluate the benefits of the minimally invasive approach with respect to the postoperative course and oncological outcomes in oesophageal cancer surgery.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00937456">NCT00937456</a> (ClinicalTrials.gov)</p

Oncological considerations of skin-sparing mastectomy

AIM: To review evidence concerning the oncological safety of performing skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) for invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Furthermore, the evidence concerning RT in relation to SSM and the possibility of nipple preservation was considered. METHODS: Literature review facilitated by Medline and PubMed databases. FINDINGS: Despite the lack of randomised controlled trials, SSM has become an accepted procedure in women undergoing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction for early breast cancer. Compared to non-skin-sparing mastectomy (NSSM), SSM seems to be oncologically safe in patients undergoing mastectomy for invasive tumours smaller than 5 cm, multicentric tumours, DCIS or risk-reduction. However, the technique should be avoided in patients with inflammatory breast cancer or in those with extensive tumour involvement of the skin in view of the high risk of local recurrence. SSM with nipple areola complex (NAC) preservation appears to be oncologically safe, provided the tumour is not close to the nipple and a frozen section protocol for the retro-areolar tissue is followed. Although radiotherapy (RT) does not represent a contraindication to SSM, the latter should be used with caution if postoperative RT is likely, since it detracts from the final cosmetic outcome

High-Resolution Imaging of the Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer in Normal Eyes Using Adaptive Optics Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy

To conduct high-resolution imaging of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) in normal eyes using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (AO-SLO).AO-SLO images were obtained in 20 normal eyes at multiple locations in the posterior polar area and a circular path with a 3-4-mm diameter around the optic disc. For each eye, images focused on the RNFL were recorded and a montage of AO-SLO images was created.AO-SLO images for all eyes showed many hyperreflective bundles in the RNFL. Hyperreflective bundles above or below the fovea were seen in an arch from the temporal periphery on either side of a horizontal dividing line to the optic disc. The dark lines among the hyperreflective bundles were narrower around the optic disc compared with those in the temporal raphe. The hyperreflective bundles corresponded with the direction of the striations on SLO red-free images. The resolution and contrast of the bundles were much higher in AO-SLO images than in red-free fundus photography or SLO red-free images. The mean hyperreflective bundle width around the optic disc had a double-humped shape; the bundles at the temporal and nasal sides of the optic disc were narrower than those above and below the optic disc (P<0.001). RNFL thickness obtained by optical coherence tomography correlated with the hyperreflective bundle widths on AO-SLO (P<0.001)AO-SLO revealed hyperreflective bundles and dark lines in the RNFL, believed to be retinal nerve fiber bundles and Müller cell septa. The widths of the nerve fiber bundles appear to be proportional to the RNFL thickness at equivalent distances from the optic disc

Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Purpose Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have broadened to include the risk reducing setting and locally advanced tumors, which resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of NSM. The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on NSM and immediate reconstruction was held to address a variety of questions in clinical practice and research based on published evidence and expert panel opinion. Methods The panel consisted of 44 breast surgeons from 14 countries across four continents with a background in gynecology, general or reconstructive surgery and a practice dedicated to breast cancer, as well as a patient advocate. Panelists presented evidence summaries relating to each topic for debate during the in-person consensus conference. The iterative process in question development, voting, and wording of the recommendations followed the modified Delphi methodology. Results Consensus recommendations were reached in 35, majority recommendations in 24, and no recommendations in the remaining 12 questions. The panel acknowledged the need for standardization of various aspects of NSM and immediate reconstruction. It endorsed several oncological contraindications to the preservation of the skin and nipple. Furthermore, it recommended inclusion of patients in prospective registries and routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Considerable heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice became obvious during the conference. Conclusions In case of conflicting or missing evidence to guide treatment, the consensus conference revealed substantial disagreement in expert panel opinion, which, among others, supports the need for a randomized trial to evaluate the safest and most efficacious reconstruction techniques