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

Postpartum psychiatric disorders

Pregnancy is a complex and vulnerable period that presents a number of challenges to women, including the development of postpartum psychiatric disorders (PPDs). These disorders can include postpartum depression and anxiety, which are relatively common, and the rare but more severe postpartum psychosis. In addition, other PPDs can include obsessive–compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and eating disorders. The aetiology of PPDs is a complex interaction of psychological, social and biological factors, in addition to genetic and environmental factors. The goals of treating postpartum mental illness are reducing maternal symptoms and supporting maternal–child and family functioning. Women and their families should receive psychoeducation about the illness, including evidence-based discussions about the risks and benefits of each treatment option. Developing effective strategies in global settings that allow the delivery of targeted therapies to women with different clinical phenotypes and severities of PPDs is essential

Systematic review of minimally invasive resection for gastro-oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This article reviews the evidence on the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery for gastric and oesophageal cancer. METHODS: An electronic search of the literature between 1997 and 2007 was undertaken to identify primary studies and systematic reviews; studies were retrieved and analysed using predetermined criteria. Information on the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery for gastric and oesophageal cancer was recorded and analysed. RESULTS: From 188 abstracts reviewed, 46 eligible studies were identified, 23 on oesophagectomy and 23 on gastrectomy. There were 35 case series, eight case-matched studies and three randomized controlled trials. Compared with the contemporary results of open surgery, reports on minimally invasive surgery indicate potentially favourable outcomes in terms of operative blood loss, recovery of gastrointestinal function and hospital stay. However, the quality of the data was generally poor, with many potential sources of bias. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery is feasible but evidence of benefit is currently weak