Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188. Registered on 9 April 201

Dose Intensity of Chemotherapy in Patients With Relapsed Hodgkin's Lymphoma

Purpose High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (PBSCT) has become the standard treatment for patients with relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). The intensity of treatment needed is unclear. This European intergroup study evaluated the impact of sequential high-dose chemotherapy (SHDCT) before myeloablative therapy. Patients and Methods Patients with histologically confirmed, relapsed HL were treated with two cycles of dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin, and those without disease progression were randomly assigned. In the standard arm (A), patients received myeloablative therapy with carmustine, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan) followed by PBSCT. Patients in the experimental arm (B) also received sequential cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and etoposide in high-doses before BEAM. Freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) was the primary end point. Remission rates, overall survival (OS), and toxicity of treatment were secondary end points. Results From a total of 284 patients included, 241 responding patients were randomly assigned after two cycles of dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatinum. Patients treated in arm B had longer treatment duration and experienced more toxicity and protocol violations (P < .05). Mortality was similar in both arms (20% and 18%). With a median observation time of 42 months, there was no significant difference in terms of FFTF (P = .56) and OS (P = .82) between arms. FFTF at 3 years was 62% (95% CI, 56% to 68%) and OS was 80% (95% CI, 75% to 85%). Patients with stage IV, early relapse, multiple relapse, anemia, or B symptoms had a higher risk of recurrence (P < .001). Conclusion Compared with conventional high-dose chemotherapy, additional SHDCT is associated with more adverse effects and does not improve the prognosis of patients with relapsed HL. J Clin Oncol 28:5074-5080.(C) 2010 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

Blood‐circulating EV‐miRNAs, serum TARC, and quantitative FDG‐PET features in classical Hodgkin lymphoma

Abstract Blood‐based biomarkers are gaining interest for response evaluation in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). However, it is unknown how blood‐based biomarkers relate to quantitative 18F‐FDG‐PET features. We correlated extracellular vesicle‐associated miRNAs (EV‐miRNA), serum TARC, and complete blood count (CBC) with PET features (e.g., metabolic tumor volume [MTV], dissemination and intensity features) in 30 cHL patients at baseline. EV‐miR127‐3p, EV‐miR24‐3p, sTARC, and several CBC parameters showed weak to strong correlations with MTV and dissemination features, but not with intensity features. Two other EV‐miRNAs only showed weak correlations with PET features. Therefore, blood‐based biomarkers may be complementary to PET features, which warrants further exploration of combining these biomarkers in prognostic models

Superiority of Step-up Approach vs Open Necrosectomy in Long-term Follow-up of Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Background & Aims: In a 2010 randomized trial (the PANTER trial), a surgical step-up approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis was found to reduce the composite endpoint of death or major complications compared with open necrosectomy; 35% of patients were successfully treated with simple catheter drainage only. There is concern, however, that minimally invasive treatment increases the need for reinterventions for residual peripancreatic necrotic collections and other complications during the long term. We therefore performed a long-term follow-up study. Methods: We reevaluated all the 73 patients (of the 88 patients randomly assigned to groups) who were still alive after the index admission, at a mean 86 months (±11 months) of follow-up. We collected data on all clinical and health care resource utilization endpoints through this follow-up period. The primary endpoint was death or major complications (the same as for the PANTER trial). We also measured exocrine insufficiency, quality of life (using the Short Form-36 and EuroQol 5 dimensions forms), and Izbicki pain scores. Results: From index admission to long-term follow-up, 19 patients (44%) died or had major complications in the step-up group compared with 33 patients (73%) in the open-necrosectomy group (P =.005). Significantly lower proportions of patients in the step-up group had incisional hernias (23% vs 53%; P =.004), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (29% vs 56%; P =.03), or endocrine insufficiency (40% vs 64%; P =.05). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients requiring additional drainage procedures (11% vs 13%; P =.99) or pancreatic surgery (11% vs 5%; P =.43), or in recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, Izbicki pain scores, or medical costs. Quality of life increased during follow-up without a significant difference between groups. Conclusions: In an analysis of long-term outcomes of trial participants, we found the step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis to be superior to open necrosectomy, without increased risk of reinterventions

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. METHODS: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. DISCUSSION: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 2015

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. &gt;50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 201

Additional file 1: of Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

SPIRIT 2013 checklist: recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents. (DOC 112 kb