Continuous oral contraceptives versus long-term pituitary desensitization prior to IVF/ICSI in moderate to severe endometriosis:study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTIONS: The primary objective is to investigate if continuous use of oral contraceptives is non-inferior compared to long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in patients with moderate to severe endometriosis with regard to treatment efficacy. Secondary objectives concern treatment safety and cost-effectiveness. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist for 3-6 months prior to IVF/ICSI improves clinical pregnancy rates in women suffering from endometriosis. However, discussion about this treatment strategy exists because of its uncomfortable side effects. Alternatively, IVF/ICSI pre-treatment with continuously administered oral contraceptives may offer fewer side-effects and lower (in)direct costs, as well as encouraging IVF outcomes in women with endometriosis. To date, these two different IVF/ICSI pre-treatment strategies in women with endometriosis have not been directly compared. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: An open-label, parallel two-arm randomized controlled multicenter trial is planned, including patients with moderate to severe endometriosis. To demonstrate an absolute difference of 13% (delta of 10% with non-inferiority margin of 3%) with a power of 80% 137 patients per group are sufficient. Taking into account a withdrawal of patients of 10% and a cancelation rate of embryo transfer after ovarian pick up of 10% (for instance due to fertilization failure), the sample size calculation is rounded off to 165 patients per group; 330 patients in total will be included. After informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention or reference group by using web based block randomization stratified per centre. Study inclusion is expected to be complete in 3-5 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The research population consists of patients with moderate to severe endometriosis (ASRM III/IV) who are scheduled for their first, second or third IVF/ICSI treatment attempt. Women aged over 41 years, younger than 18 years, with a known contraindication for the use of oral contraceptives and/or GnRH agonists or with severe male factor infertility will be excluded from participation. After informed consent patients are allocated to the intervention group (one-phase oral contraceptive continuously during three subsequent months) or the reference group (three Leuprorelin 3.75 mg i.m./s.c. depot injections during three subsequent months). Tibolon 2.5 mg can be given daily as add-back therapy in the reference group. After 3 months of pre-treatment the IVF/ICSI stimulation phase will be started. The primary outcome is live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes are cumulative live birth rate after one IVF/ICSI treatment cycle (including fresh and frozen embryo transfers up to 15 months after randomization), ongoing pregnancy rate and time to pregnancy. In addition, treatment outcome parameters, adverse events, side-effects during the first 3 months, complications, recurrence of endometriosis (complaints), quality of life, patient preferences, safety and costs effectiveness will be reported. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months after randomization. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTs: All authors have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript. The department of reproductive medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered as the COPIE trial (Continuous use of Oral contraceptives as an alternative for long-term Pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in Endometriosis patients) in the Dutch Trial Register (Ref. No. NTR6357, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16 March 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: Enrollment is planned for November 2018

Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer:a protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261125

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer:a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer has important technical limitations. Robot-assisted and transanal TME (TaTME) may overcome these limitations, potentially leading to lower conversion rates and reduced morbidity. However, comparative data between the three approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for laparoscopic TME, robot-assisted TME and TaTME in expert centres. METHODS: Patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between 2015 and 2017 in expert centres for laparoscopic, robot-assisted or TaTME were included. Outcomes for TME surgery performed by the specialized technique in the expert centres were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was conversion rate. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1078 patients were included. In rectal cancer surgery in general, the overall rate of primary anastomosis was 39.4, 61.9 and 61.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME centres respectively (P < 0.001). For specialized techniques in expert centres excluding abdominoperineal resection (APR), the rate of primary anastomosis was 66.7 per cent in laparoscopic, 89.8 per cent in robot-assisted and 84.3 per cent in TaTME (P < 0.001). Conversion rates were 3.7 , 4.6 and 1.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME respectively (P = 0.134). The number of incomplete specimens, circumferential resection margin involvement rate and morbidity rates did not differ. CONCLUSION: In the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer more primary anastomoses are created in robotic and TaTME expert centres

Конференции

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization(IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryotransfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were (sic)7187 for IVF-SET, (sic)8206 for IVF-MNC and (sic)5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences (sic)2117; 95% CI: (sic)1544-(sic)2657 and (sic)3136, 95% CI: (sic)2519-(sic)3754, respectively). The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was (sic)43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice

Contemporary snapshot of tumor regression grade (TRG) distribution in locally advanced rectal cancer: a cross sectional multicentric experience.

Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgical resection is still the standard treatment for locally advanced low rectal cancer. Nowadays new strategies are emerging to treat patients with a complete response to pre-operative treatment, rendering the optimal management still controversial and under debate. The primary aim of this study was to obtain a snapshot of tumor regression grade (TRG) distribution after standard CRT. Second, we aimed to identify a correlation between clinical tumor stage (cT) and TRG, and to define the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the restaging setting. Between January 2017 and June 2019, a cross sectional multicentric study was performed in 22 referral centers of colon-rectal surgery including all patients with cT3-4Nx/cTxN1-2 rectal cancer who underwent pre-operative CRT. Shapiro-Wilk test was used for continuous data. Categorical variables were compared with Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test, where appropriate. Accuracy of restaging MRI in the identification of pathologic complete response (pCR) was determined evaluating the correspondence with the histopathological examination of surgical specimens.In the present study, 689 patients were enrolled. Complete tumor regression rate was 16.9%. The "watch and wait" strategy was applied in 4.3% of TRG4 patients. A clinical correlation between more advanced tumors and moderate to absent tumor regression was found (p = 0.03). Post-neoadjuvant MRI had low sensibility (55%) and high specificity (83%) with accuracy of 82.8% in identifying TRG4 and pCR.Our data provided a contemporary description of the effects of pre-operative CRT on a large pool of locally advanced low rectal cancer patients treated in different colon-rectal surgical centers

Use of fluorescence imaging and indocyanine green during colorectal surgery: Results of an intercontinental Delphi survey

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green is increasingly being used in colorectal surgery to assess anastomotic perfusion, and to detect sentinel lymph nodes. METHODS: In this 2-round, online, Delphi survey, 35 international experts were asked to vote on 69 statements pertaining to patient preparation and contraindications to fluorescence imaging during colorectal surgery, indications, technical aspects, potential advantages/disadvantages, and effectiveness versus limitations, and training and research. Methodological steps were adopted during survey design to minimize risk of bias. RESULTS: More than 70% consensus was reached on 60 of 69 statements, including moderate-strong consensus regarding fluorescence imaging's value assessing anastomotic perfusion and leak risk, but not on its value mapping sentinel nodes. Similarly, although consensus was reached regarding most technical aspects of its use assessing anastomoses, little consensus was achieved for lymph-node assessments. Evaluating anastomoses, experts agreed that the optimum total indocyanine green dose and timing are 5 to 10 mg and 30 to 60 seconds pre-evaluation, indocyanine green should be dosed milligram/kilogram, lines should be flushed with saline, and indocyanine green can be readministered if bright perfusion is not achieved, although how long surgeons should wait remains unknown. The only consensus achieved for lymph-node assessments was that 2 to 4 injection points are needed. Ninety-six percent and 100% consensus were reached that fluorescence imaging will increase in practice and research over the next decade, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although further research remains necessary, fluorescence imaging appears to have value assessing anastomotic perfusion, but its value for lymph-node mapping remains questionable

Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility: randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child. DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: 17 centres in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility. INTERVENTIONS: Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality RESULTS: 602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation). CONCLUSIONS: In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.A J Bensdorp ... B W J Mol ... et al

Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis; the COLOPEC randomized multicentre trial

Background: The peritoneum is the second most common site of recurrence in colorectal cancer. Early detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by imaging is difficult. Patients eventually presenting with clinically apparent PC have a poor prognosis. Median survival is only about five months if untreated and the benefit of palliative systemic chemotherapy is limited. Only a quarter of patients are eligible for curative treatment, consisting of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CR/HIPEC). However, the effectiveness depends highly on the extent of disease and the treatment is associated with a considerable complication rate. These clinical problems underline the need for effective adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients to minimize the risk of outgrowth of peritoneal micro metastases. Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) seems to be suitable for this purpose. Without the need for cytoreductive surgery, adjuvant HIPEC can be performed with a low complication rate and short hospital stay. Methods/Design: The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of adjuvant HIPEC in preventing the development of PC in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal recurrence. This study will be performed in the nine Dutch HIPEC centres, starting in April 2015. Eligible for inclusion are patients who underwent curative resection for T4 or intra-abdominally perforated cM0 stage colon cancer. After resection of the primary tumour, 176 patients will be randomized to adjuvant HIPEC followed by routine adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in the experimental arm, or to systemic chemotherapy only in the control arm. Adjuvant HIPEC will be performed simultaneously or shortly after the primary resection. Oxaliplatin will be used as chemotherapeutic agent, for 30 min at 42-43 degrees C. Just before HIPEC, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin will be administered intravenously. Primary endpoint is peritoneal disease-free survival at 18 months. Diagnostic laparoscopy will be performed routinely after 18 months postoperatively in both arms of the study in patients without evidence of disease based on routine follow-up using CT imaging and CEA. Discussion: Adjuvant HIPEC is assumed to reduce the expected 25 % absolute risk of PC in patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer to a risk of 10 %. This reduction is likely to translate into a prolonged overall survival

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study):study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. METHODS: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. DISCUSSION: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018