Endosonography With or Without Confirmatory Mediastinoscopy for Resectable Lung Cancer:A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE:Resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a high probability of mediastinal nodal involvement requires mediastinal staging by endosonography and, in the absence of nodal metastases, confirmatory mediastinoscopy according to current guidelines. However, randomized data regarding immediate lung tumor resection after systematic endosonography versus additional confirmatory mediastinoscopy before resection are lacking.METHODS:Patients with (suspected) resectable NSCLC and an indication for mediastinal staging after negative systematic endosonography were randomly assigned to immediate lung tumor resection or confirmatory mediastinoscopy followed by tumor resection. The primary outcome in this noninferiority trial (noninferiority margin of 8% that previously showed to not compromise survival, Pnoninferior &lt;.0250) was the presence of unforeseen N2 disease after tumor resection with lymph node dissection. Secondary outcomes were 30-day major morbidity and mortality.RESULTS:Between July 17, 2017, and October 5, 2020, 360 patients were randomly assigned, 178 to immediate lung tumor resection (seven dropouts) and 182 to confirmatory mediastinoscopy first (seven dropouts before and six after mediastinoscopy). Mediastinoscopy detected metastases in 8.0% (14/175; 95% CI, 4.8 to 13.0) of patients. Unforeseen N2 rate after immediate resection (8.8%) was noninferior compared with mediastinoscopy first (7.7%) in both intention-to-treat (Δ, 1.03%; UL 95% CIΔ, 7.2%; Pnoninferior =.0144) and per-protocol analyses (Δ, 0.83%; UL 95% CIΔ, 7.3%; Pnoninferior =.0157). Major morbidity and 30-day mortality was 12.9% after immediate resection versus 15.4% after mediastinoscopy first (P =.4940).CONCLUSION:On the basis of our chosen noninferiority margin in the rate of unforeseen N2, confirmatory mediastinoscopy after negative systematic endosonography can be omitted in patients with resectable NSCLC and an indication for mediastinal staging.</p

Protocol for a prospective, longitudinal cohort study on the effect of arterial disease level on the outcomes of supervised exercise in intermittent claudication: the ELECT Registry

Introduction  Despite guideline recommendations advocating conservative management before invasive treatment in intermittent claudication, early revascularisation remains widespread in patients with favourable anatomy. The aim of the Effect of Disease Level on Outcomes of Supervised Exercise in Intermittent Claudication Registry is to determine the effect of the location of stenosis on the outcomes of supervised exercise in patients with intermittent claudication due to peripheral arterial disease. Methods and analysis  This multicentre prospective cohort study aims to enrol 320 patients in 10 vascular centres across the Netherlands. All patients diagnosed with intermittent claudication (peripheral arterial disease: Fontaine II/Rutherford 1-3), who are considered candidates for supervised exercise therapy by their own physicians are appropriate to participate. Participants will receive standard care, meaning supervised exercise therapy first, with endovascular or open revascularisation in case of insufficient effect (at the discretion of patient and vascular surgeon). For the primary objectives, patients are grouped according to anatomical characteristics of disease (aortoiliac, femoropopliteal or multilevel disease) as apparent on the preferred imaging modality in the participating centre (either duplex, CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography). Changes in walking performance (treadmill tests, 6 min walk test) and quality of life (QoL; Vascular QoL Questionnaire-6, WHO QoL Questionnaire-Bref) will be compared between groups, after multivariate adjustment for possible confounders. Freedom from revascularisation and major adverse cardiovascular disease events, and attainment of the treatment goal between anatomical groups will be compared using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Ethics and dissemination  This study has been exempted from formal medical ethical approval by the Medical Research Ethics Committees United 'MEC-U' (W17.071). Results are intended for publication in peer-reviewed journals and for presentation to stakeholders nationally and internationally

Guideline adherence of mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer:A multicentre retrospective analysis

Objectives: Mediastinal lymph node staging of NSCLC by initial endosonography and confirmatory mediastinoscopy is recommended by the European guideline. We assessed guideline adherence on mediastinal staging, whether staging procedures were performed systematically and unforeseen N2 rates following staging by endosonography with or without confirmatory mediastinoscopy. Material and Methods: We performed a multicentre (n = 6) retrospective analysis of NSCLC patients without distant metastases, who were surgical candidates and had an indication for mediastinal staging in the year 2015. All patients who underwent EBUS, EUS and/or mediastinoscopy were included. Surgical lymph node dissection was the reference standard. Guideline adherence was based on the 2014 ESTS guideline. Results: 330 consecutive patients (mean age 69 years; 61% male) were included. The overall prevalence of N2/N3 disease was 42%. Initial mediastinal staging by endosonography was done in 84% (277/330; range among centres 71-100%; p <.01). Confirmatory mediastinoscopy was performed in 40% of patients with tumour negative endosonography (61/154; range among centres 10%-73%; p <.01). Endosonography procedures were performed ‘systematically’ in 21% of patients (57/277) with significant variability among centres (range 0-56%; p <.01). Unforeseen N2 rates after lobe-specific lymph node dissection were 8.6% (3/35; 95%-CI 3.0-22.4) after negative endosonography versus 7.5% (3/40; 95% CI 2.6-19.9) after negative endosonography and confirmatory mediastinoscopy. Conclusion: Although adherence to the European NSCLC mediastinal staging guideline on initial use of endosonography was good, 30% of endosonography procedures were performed insufficiently. Confirmatory mediastinoscopy following negative endosonography was frequently omitted. Significant variability was found among participating centres regarding staging strategy and systematic performance of procedures. However, unforeseen N2 rates after mediastinal staging by endosonography with and without confirmatory mediastinoscopy were comparable

MEDIASTinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer by endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasonography with or without additional surgical mediastinoscopy (MEDIASTrial): a statistical analysis plan

Background: Invasive mediastinal nodal staging is recommended by guidelines in selected patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Endosonography is recommended as initial staging technique, followed by confirmatory mediastinoscopy in case of negative N2 or N3 cytology after endosonography. Confirmatory mediastinoscopy however is under debate owing its limited additional diagnostic value, its associated morbidity and its delay in the start of lung cancer treatment. The MEDIASTrial examines whether confirmatory mediastinoscopy can be safely omitted after negative endosonography in mediastinal nodal staging of NSCLC. The present work is the proposed statistical analysis plan of the clinical consequences of omitting mediastinoscopy, which is submitted before closure of the MEDIASTrial and before knowledge of any results was done to enhance transparency of scientific behaviour. Methods: The primary outcome measure of this non-inferiority trial will be unforeseen N2 disease resulting from lobe-specific mediastinal lymph node dissection. For non-inferiority, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the unforeseen N2 rate in the group without mediastinoscopy should not exceed 14.3% in order to probably have no negative impact on survival. Since this is a non-inferiority trial, both an intention to treat (ITT) and a per protocol (PP) analyses will be done. The ITT and the PP analyses should both indicate non-inferiority before the diagnostic strategy omitting mediastinoscopy will be interpreted as non-inferior to the strategy with mediastinoscopy. Secondary outcome measures include 30-day major morbidity and mortality, the total number of days of hospital care, overall and disease free 2-year survival, generic and disease-specific health related quality of life and cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of staging strategies with and without mediastinoscopy. Discussion: The MEDIASTrial will determine if confirmatory mediastinoscopy can be omitted after tumour negative systematic endosonography in invasive mediastinal staging of patients with resectable NSCLC. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register NL6344/NTR6528. Registered on 2017 July 06

MEDIASTinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer by endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasonography with or without additional surgical mediastinoscopy (MEDIASTrial): Study protocol of a multicenter randomised controlled trial

Background: In case of suspicious lymph nodes on computed tomography (CT) or fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), advanced tumour size or central tumour location in patients with suspected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Dutch and European guidelines recommend mediastinal staging by endosonography (endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)) with sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes. If biopsy results from endosonography turn out negative, additional surgical staging of the mediastinum by mediastinoscopy is advised to prevent unnecessary lung resection due to false negative endosonography findings. We hypothesize that omitting mediastinoscopy after negative endosonography in mediastinal staging of NSCLC does not result in an unacceptable percentage of unforeseen N2 disease at surgical resection. In addition, omitting mediastinoscopy comprises no extra waiting time until definite surgery, omits one extra general anaesthesia and hospital admission, and may be associated with lower morbidity and comparable survival. Therefore, this strategy may reduce health care costs and increase quality of life. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of mediastinal staging strategies including and excluding mediastinoscopy. Methods/design: This study is a multicenter parallel randomized non-inferiority trial comparing two diagnostic strategies (with or without mediastinoscopy) for mediastinal staging in 360 patients with suspected resectable NSCLC. Patients are eligible for inclusion when they underwent systematic endosonography to evaluate mediastinal lymph nodes including tissue sampling with negative endosonography results. Patients will not be eligible for inclusion when PET/CT demonstrates 'bulky N2-N3' disease or the combination of a highly suspicious as well as irresectable mediastinal lymph node. Primary outcome measure for non-inferiority is the proportion of patients with unforeseen N2 disease at surgery. Secondary outcome measures are hospitalization, morbidity, overall 2-year survival, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. Patients will be followed up 2 years after start of treatment. Discussion: Results of the MEDIASTrial will have immediate impact on national and international guidelines, which are accessible to public, possibly reducing mediastinoscopy as a commonly performed invasive procedure for NSCLC staging and diminishing variation in clinical practice. Trial registration: The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register on July 6th, 2017 (NTR 6528)

Association of Hospital Volume with Perioperative Mortality of Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Objective: We evaluate nationwide perioperative outcomes of complex EVAR and assess the volume-outcome association of complex EVAR. Summary of Background Data: Endovascular treatment with fenestrated (FEVAR) or branched (BEVAR) endografts is progressively used for excluding complex aortic aneurysms (complex AAs). It is unclear if a volumeoutcome association exists in endovascular treatment of complex AAs (complex EVAR). Methods: All patients prospectively registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit who underwent complex EVAR (FEVAR or BEVAR) between January 2016 and January 2020 were included. The effect of annual hospital volume on perioperative mortality was examined using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Patients were stratified into quartiles based on annual hospital volume to determine hospital volume categories. Results: We included 694 patients (539 FEVAR patients, 155 BEVAR patients). Perioperative mortality following FEVAR was 4.5% and 5.2% following BEVAR. Postoperative complication rates were 30.1% and 48.7%, respectively. The first quartile hospitals performed <9 procedures/ yr; second, third, and fourth quartile hospitals performed 9-12, 13-22, and 23 procedures/yr. The highest volume hospitals treated significantly more complex patients. Perioperative mortality of complex EVAR was 9.1% in hospitals with a volume of <9, and 2.5% in hospitals with a volume of 13 (P = 0.008). After adjustment for confounders, an annual volume of 13 was associated with less perioperative mortality compared to hospitals with a volume of <9. Conclusions: Data from this nationwide mandatory quality registry shows a significant effect of hospital volume on perioperative mortality following complex EVAR, with high volume complex EVAR centers demonstrating lower mortality rates

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable