Nationwide randomised trial evaluating elective neck dissection for early stage oral cancer (SEND study) with meta-analysis and concurrent real-world cohort

BACKGROUND: Guidelines remain unclear over whether patients with early stage oral cancer without overt neck disease benefit from upfront elective neck dissection (END), particularly those with the smallest tumours. // METHODS: We conducted a randomised trial of patients with stage T1/T2 N0 disease, who had their mouth tumour resected either with or without END. Data were also collected from a concurrent cohort of patients who had their preferred surgery. Endpoints included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). We conducted a meta-analysis of all six randomised trials. // RESULTS: Two hundred fifty randomised and 346 observational cohort patients were studied (27 hospitals). Occult neck disease was found in 19.1% (T1) and 34.7% (T2) patients respectively. Five-year intention-to-treat hazard ratios (HR) were: OS HR = 0.71 (p = 0.18), and DFS HR = 0.66 (p = 0.04). Corresponding per-protocol results were: OS HR = 0.59 (p = 0.054), and DFS HR = 0.56 (p = 0.007). END was effective for small tumours. END patients experienced more facial/neck nerve damage; QoL was largely unaffected. The observational cohort supported the randomised findings. The meta-analysis produced HR OS 0.64 and DFS 0.54 (p < 0.001). // CONCLUSION: SEND and the cumulative evidence show that within a generalisable setting oral cancer patients who have an upfront END have a lower risk of death/recurrence, even with small tumours. // CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIHR UK Clinical Research Network database ID number: UKCRN 2069 (registered on 17/02/2006), ISCRTN number: 65018995, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00571883

Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

Peer reviewe

Are root cause analyses recommendations effective and sustainable? An observational study

Thomas, MJ ORCiD: 0000-0002-5553-5825Objective: To assess the strength of root cause analysis (RCA) recommendations and their perceived levels of effectiveness and sustainability. Design: All RCAs related to sentinel events (SEs) undertaken between the years 2010 and 2015 in the public health system in Victoria, Australia were analysed. The type and strength of each recommendation in the RCA reports were coded by an expert patient safety classifier using the US Department of Veteran Affairs type and strength criteria. Participants and setting: Thirty-six public health services. Main outcome measure(s): The proportion of RCA recommendations which were classified as 'strong' (more likely to be effective and sustainable), 'medium' (possibly effective and sustainable) or 'weak' (less likely to be effective and sustainable). Results: There were 227 RCAs in the period of study. In these RCAs, 1137 recommendations were made. Of these 8% were 'strong', 44% 'medium' and 48% were 'weak'. In 31 RCAs, or nearly 15%, only weak recommendations were made. In 24 (11%) RCAs five or more weak recommendations were made. In 165 (72%) RCAs no strong recommendations were made. The most frequent recommendation types were reviewing or enhancing a policy/guideline/documentation, and training and education. Conclusions: Only a small proportion of recommendations arising from RCAs in Victoria are 'strong'. This suggests that insights from the majority of RCAs are not likely to inform practice or process improvements. Suggested improvements include more human factors expertise and independence in investigations, more extensive application of existing tools that assist teams to prioritize recommendations that are likely to be effective, and greater use of observational and simulation techniques to understand the underlying systems factors. Time spent in repeatedly investigating similar incidents may be better spent aggregating and thematically analysing existing sources of information about patient safety. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved

Nationwide randomised trial evaluating elective neck dissection for early stage oral cancer (SEND study) with meta-analysis and concurrent real-world cohort.

BACKGROUND Guidelines remain unclear over whether patients with early stage oral cancer without overt neck disease benefit from upfront elective neck dissection (END), particularly those with the smallest tumours. METHODS We conducted a randomised trial of patients with stage T1/T2 N0 disease, who had their mouth tumour resected either with or without END. Data were also collected from a concurrent cohort of patients who had their preferred surgery. Endpoints included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). We conducted a meta-analysis of all six randomised trials. RESULTS Two hundred fifty randomised and 346 observational cohort patients were studied (27 hospitals). Occult neck disease was found in 19.1% (T1) and 34.7% (T2) patients respectively. Five-year intention-to-treat hazard ratios (HR) were: OS HR = 0.71 (p = 0.18), and DFS HR = 0.66 (p = 0.04). Corresponding per-protocol results were: OS HR = 0.59 (p = 0.054), and DFS HR = 0.56 (p = 0.007). END was effective for small tumours. END patients experienced more facial/neck nerve damage; QoL was largely unaffected. The observational cohort supported the randomised findings. The meta-analysis produced HR OS 0.64 and DFS 0.54 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION SEND and the cumulative evidence show that within a generalisable setting oral cancer patients who have an upfront END have a lower risk of death/recurrence, even with small tumours. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NIHR UK Clinical Research Network database ID number: UKCRN 2069 (registered on 17/02/2006), ISCRTN number: 65018995, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00571883