Unresectable Intermediate-Size (3–5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases:Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy Versus Microwave Ablation (COLLISION-XL): Protocol of a Phase II/III Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Although microwave ablation (MWA) has a low complication rate and good efficacy for small-size (≤ 3 cm) colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), local control decreases with increasing size. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is gaining interest as a potential means to treat intermediate-size CRLM and might be less susceptible to increasing volume. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of MWA to SBRT in patients with unresectable, intermediate-size (3–5 cm) CRLM. Methods: In this two-arm, multicentre phase II/ III randomized controlled trial, 68 patients with 1–3 unresectable, intermediate-size CRLM suitable for both MWA and SBRT, will be included. Patients will be treated with MWA or SBRT as randomised. The Primary endpoint is local tumour progression-free survival (LTPFS) at 1 year (intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall survival, overall and distant progression-free survival (DPFS), local control (LC) and procedural morbidity and mortality and assessment of pain and quality of life. Discussion: Current guidelines lack clear recommendations for the local treatment of liver only intermediate-size, unresectable CRLM and studies comparing curative intent SBRT and thermal ablation are scarce. Although safety and feasibility to eradicate tumours ≤ 5 cm have been established, both techniques suffer from lower LTPFS and LC rates for larger-size tumours. For the treatment of unresectable intermediate-size CRLM clinical equipoise has been reached. We have designed a two-armed phase II/ III randomized controlled trial directly comparing SBRT to MWA for unresectable CRLM 3–5 cm. Level of Evidence : Level 1, phase II/ III Randomized controlled trial. Trial Registration: NCT04081168, September 9th 2019. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]</p

Unresectable Intermediate-Size (3–5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases:Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy Versus Microwave Ablation (COLLISION-XL): Protocol of a Phase II/III Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Although microwave ablation (MWA) has a low complication rate and good efficacy for small-size (≤ 3 cm) colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), local control decreases with increasing size. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is gaining interest as a potential means to treat intermediate-size CRLM and might be less susceptible to increasing volume. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of MWA to SBRT in patients with unresectable, intermediate-size (3–5 cm) CRLM. Methods: In this two-arm, multicentre phase II/ III randomized controlled trial, 68 patients with 1–3 unresectable, intermediate-size CRLM suitable for both MWA and SBRT, will be included. Patients will be treated with MWA or SBRT as randomised. The Primary endpoint is local tumour progression-free survival (LTPFS) at 1 year (intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall survival, overall and distant progression-free survival (DPFS), local control (LC) and procedural morbidity and mortality and assessment of pain and quality of life. Discussion: Current guidelines lack clear recommendations for the local treatment of liver only intermediate-size, unresectable CRLM and studies comparing curative intent SBRT and thermal ablation are scarce. Although safety and feasibility to eradicate tumours ≤ 5 cm have been established, both techniques suffer from lower LTPFS and LC rates for larger-size tumours. For the treatment of unresectable intermediate-size CRLM clinical equipoise has been reached. We have designed a two-armed phase II/ III randomized controlled trial directly comparing SBRT to MWA for unresectable CRLM 3–5 cm. Level of Evidence : Level 1, phase II/ III Randomized controlled trial. Trial Registration: NCT04081168, September 9th 2019. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]</p

Ultrasound-guided breast-sparing surgery to improve cosmetic outcomes and quality of life. A prospective multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial comparing ultrasound-guided surgery to traditional palpation-guided surgery (COBALT trial)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer was developed as a method to preserve healthy breast tissue, thereby improving cosmetic outcomes. Thus far, the primary aim of breast-conserving surgery has been the achievement of tumour-free resection margins and prevention of local recurrence, whereas the cosmetic outcome has been considered less important. Large studies have reported poor cosmetic outcomes in 20-40% of patients after breast-conserving surgery, with the volume of the resected breast tissue being the major determinant. There is clear evidence for the efficacy of ultrasonography in the resection of nonpalpable tumours. Surgical resection of palpable breast cancer is performed with guidance by intra-operative palpation. These palpation-guided excisions often result in an unnecessarily wide resection of adjacent healthy breast tissue, while the rate of tumour-involved resection margins is still high. It is hypothesised that the use of intra-operative ultrasonography in the excision of palpable breast cancer will improve the ability to spare healthy breast tissue while maintaining or even improving the oncological margin status. The aim of this study is to compare ultrasound-guided surgery for palpable tumours with the standard palpation-guided surgery in terms of the extent of healthy breast tissue resection, the percentage of tumour-free margins, cosmetic outcomes and quality of life.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>In this prospective multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial, 120 women who have been diagnosed with palpable early-stage (T1-2N0-1) primary invasive breast cancer and deemed suitable for breast-conserving surgery will be randomised between ultrasound-guided surgery and palpation-guided surgery. With this sample size, an expected 20% reduction of resected breast tissue and an 18% difference in tumour-free margins can be detected with a power of 80%. Secondary endpoints include cosmetic outcomes and quality of life. The rationale, study design and planned analyses are described.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The COBALT trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled study to assess the efficacy of ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery in patients with palpable early-stage primary invasive breast cancer in terms of the sparing of breast tissue, oncological margin status, cosmetic outcomes and quality of life.</p> <p>Trial Registration Number</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2579">NTR2579</a></p

Practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases:a population-based study

Introduction: In 2017, the Southampton guideline stated that minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) should considered standard practice for minor liver resections. This study aimed to assess recent implementation rates of minor MILR, factors associated with performing MILR, hospital variation, and outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Methods: This population-based study included all patients who underwent minor liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021. Factors associated with MILR and nationwide hospital variation were assessed using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between minor MILR and minor open liver resections. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan–Meier analysis on patients operated until 2018. Results: Of 4,488 patients included, 1,695 (37.8%) underwent MILR. PSM resulted in 1,338 patients in each group. Implementation of MILR increased to 51.2% in 2021. Factors associated with not performing MILR included treatment with preoperative chemotherapy (aOR 0.61 CI:0.50–0.75, p &lt; 0.001), treatment in a tertiary referral hospital (aOR 0.57 CI:0.50–0.67, p &lt; 0.001), and larger diameter and number of CRLM. Significant hospital variation was observed in use of MILR (7.5% to 93.0%). After case-mix correction, six hospitals performed fewer, and six hospitals performed more MILRs than expected. In the PSM cohort, MILR was associated with a decrease in blood loss (aOR 0.99 CI:0.99–0.99, p &lt; 0.01), cardiac complications (aOR 0.29, CI:0.10–0.70, p = 0.009), IC admissions (aOR 0.66, CI:0.50–0.89, p = 0.005), and shorter hospital stay (aOR CI:0.94–0.99, p &lt; 0.01). Five-year OS rates for MILR and OLR were 53.7% versus 48.6%, p = 0.21. Conclusion: Although uptake of MILR is increasing in the Netherlands, significant hospital variation remains. MILR benefits short-term outcomes, while overall survival is comparable to open liver surgery. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].</p

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases:Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.</p

Viable Tumor Tissue Adherent to Needle Applicators after Local Ablation: A Risk Factor for Local Tumor Progression

Background. Local tumor progression (LTP) is a serious complication after local ablation of malignant liver tumors, negatively influencing patient survival. LTP may be the result of incomplete ablation of the treated tumor. In this study, we determined whether viable tumor cells attached to the needle applicator after ablation was associated with LTP and disease-free survival. Methods. In this prospective study, tissue was collected of 96 consecutive patients who underwent local liver ablations for 130 liver malignancies. Cells and tissue attached to the needle applicators were analyzed for viability using glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase staining and autofluorescence intensity levels of H&E stained sections. Patients were followed-up until disease progression. Results. Viable tumor cells were found on the needle applicators after local ablation in 26.7% of patients. The type of needle applicator used, an open approach, and the omission of track ablation were significantly correlated with viable tumor tissue adherent to the needle applicator. The presence of viable cells was an independent predictor of LTP. The attachment of viable cells to the needle applicators was associated with a shorter time to LTP. Conclusions. Viable tumor cells adherent to the needle applicators were found after ablation of 26.7% of patients. An independent risk factor for viable cells adherent to the needle applicators is the omission of track ablation. We recommend using only RFA devices that have track ablation functionality. Adherence of viable tumor cells to the needle applicator after local ablation was an independent risk factor for LT

Colorectal liver metastases: Surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION) - a phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. Methods: In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Discussion: If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising oncological outcome for patients with CRLM. Trial registration:NCT03088150 , January 11th 2017