Quality-of-life outcomes in older patients with early-stage rectal cancer receiving organ-preserving treatment with hypofractionated short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TREC): non-randomised registry of patients unsuitable for total mesorectal excision

Background Older patients with early-stage rectal cancer are under-represented in clinical trials and, therefore, little high-quality data are available to guide treatment in this patient population. The TREC trial was a randomised, open-label feasibility study conducted at 21 centres across the UK that compared organ preservation through short-course radiotherapy (SCRT; 25 Gy in five fractions) plus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with standard total mesorectal excision in adults with stage T1–2 rectal adenocarcinoma (maximum diameter ≤30 mm) and no lymph node involvement or metastasis. TREC incorporated a non-randomised registry offering organ preservation to patients who were considered unsuitable for total mesorectal excision by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team. Organ preservation was achieved in 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised registry patients with local recurrence-free survival of 91% (95% CI 84–99) at 3 years. Here, we report acute and long-term patient-reported outcomes from this non-randomised registry group. Methods Patients considered by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team to be at high risk of complications from total mesorectal excision on the basis of frailty, comorbidities, and older age were included in a non-randomised registry to receive organ-preserving treatment. These patients were invited to complete questionnaires on patient-reported outcomes (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life [EORTC-QLQ] questionnaire core module [QLQ-C30] and colorectal cancer module [QLQ-CR29], the Colorectal Functional Outcome [COREFO] questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level [EQ-5D-3L]) at baseline and at months 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 postoperatively. To aid interpretation, data from patients in the non-randomised registry were compared with data from those patients in the TREC trial who had been randomly assigned to organ-preserving therapy, and an additional reference cohort of aged-matched controls from the UK general population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN14422743, and is closed. Findings Between July 21, 2011, and July 15, 2015, 88 patients were enrolled onto the TREC study to undergo organ preservation, of whom 27 (31%) were randomly allocated to organ-preserving therapy and 61 (69%) were added to the non-randomised registry for organ-preserving therapy. Non-randomised patients were older than randomised patients (median age 74 years [IQR 67–80] vs 65 years [61–71]). Organ-preserving treatment was well tolerated among patients in the non-randomised registry, with mild worsening of fatigue; quality of life; physical, social, and role functioning; and bowel function 3 months postoperatively compared with baseline values. By 6–12 months, most scores had returned to baseline values, and were indistinguishable from data from the reference cohort. Only mild symptoms of faecal incontinence and urgency, equivalent to less than one episode per week, persisted at 36 months among patients in both groups. Interpretation The SCRT and TEM organ-preservation approach was well tolerated in older and frailer patients, showed good rates of organ preservation, and was associated with low rates of acute and long-term toxicity, with minimal effects on quality of life and functional status. Our findings support the adoption of this approach for patients considered to be at high risk from radical surgery. Funding Cancer Research UK

Colorectal Endoscopic Stenting Trial (CReST) for obstructing left-sided colorectal cancer: randomized clinical trial

Background Colorectal cancer often presents with obstruction needing urgent, potentially life-saving decompression. The comparative efficacy and safety of endoluminal stenting versus emergency surgery as initial treatment for such patients is uncertain. Methods Patients with left-sided colonic obstruction and radiological features of carcinoma were randomized to endoluminal stenting using a combined endoscopic/fluoroscopic technique followed by elective surgery 1–4 weeks later, or surgical decompression with or without tumour resection. Treatment allocation was via a central randomization service using a minimization procedure stratified by curative intent, primary tumour site, and severity score (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation). Co-primary outcome measures were duration of hospital stay and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were stoma formation, stenting completion and complication rates, perioperative morbidity, 6-month survival, 3-year recurrence, resource use, adherence to chemotherapy, and quality of life. Analyses were undertaken by intention to treat. Results Between 23 April 2009 and 22 December 2014, 245 patients from 39 hospitals were randomized. Stenting was attempted in 119 of 123 allocated patients (96.7 per cent), achieving relief of obstruction in 98 of 119 (82.4 per cent). For the 89 per cent treated with curative intent, there were no significant differences in 30-day postoperative mortality (3.6 per cent (4 of 110) versus 5.6 per cent (6 of 107); P = 0.48), or duration of hospital stay (median 19 (i.q.r. 11–34) versus 18 (10–28) days; P = 0.94) between stenting followed by delayed elective surgery and emergency surgery. Among patients undergoing potentially curative treatment, stoma formation occurred less frequently in those allocated to stenting than those allocated to immediate surgery (47 of 99 (47.5 per cent) versus 72 of 106 (67.9 per cent); P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in perioperative morbidity, critical care use, quality of life, 3-year recurrence or mortality between treatment groups. Conclusion Stenting as a bridge to surgery reduces stoma formation without detrimental effects. Registration number: ISRCTN13846816 (http://www.controlled-trials.com)

Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson\u27s disease (PD MED): A large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial

\ua9 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Background Whether initial treatment for Parkinson\u27s disease should consist of levodopa, dopamine agonists, or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (MAOBI) is uncertain. We aimed to establish which of these three classes of drug, as initial treatment, provides the most effective long-term control of symptoms and best quality of life for people with early Parkinson\u27s disease. Methods In this pragmatic, open-label randomised trial, patients newly diagnosed with Parkinson\u27s disease were randomly assigned (by telephone call to a central office; 1:1:1) between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or MAOBI) and levodopa alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. Primary outcomes were the mobility dimension on the 39-item patient-rated Parkinson\u27s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) quality-of-life scale (range 0-100 with six points defined as the minimally important difference) and cost-effectiveness. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN69812316. Findings Between Nov 9, 2000, and Dec 22, 2009, 1620 patients were assigned to study groups (528 to levodopa, 632 to dopamine agonist, 460 to MAOBI). With 3-year median follow-up, PDQ-39 mobility scores averaged 1\ub78 points (95% CI 0\ub75-3\ub70, p=0\ub7005) better in patients randomly assigned to levodopa than those assigned to levodopa-sparing therapy, with no increase or attrition of benefit during 7 years\u27 observation. PDQ-39 mobility scores were 1\ub74 points (95% CI 0\ub70-2\ub79, p=0\ub705) better in patients allocated MAOBI than in those allocated dopamine agonists. EQ-5D utility scores averaged 0\ub703 (95% CI 0\ub701-0\ub705; p=0\ub70002) better with levodopa than with levodopa-sparing therapy; rates of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0\ub781, 95% CI 0\ub761-1\ub708, p=0\ub714), admissions to institutions (0\ub786, 0\ub763-1\ub718; p=0\ub74), and death (0\ub785, 0\ub769-1\ub706, p=0\ub717) were not significantly different, but the upper CIs precluded any substantial increase with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. 179 (28%) of 632 patients allocated dopamine agonists and 104 (23%) of 460 patients allocated MAOBI discontinued allocated treatment because of side-effects compared with 11 (2%) of 528 patients allocated levodopa (p<0\ub70001). Interpretation Very small but persistent benefits are shown for patient-rated mobility scores when treatment is initiated with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. MAOBI as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was at least as effective as dopamine agonists. Funding UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and UK Department of Health