The ethics of ‘Trials within Cohorts’ (TwiCs): 2nd international symposium - London, UK. 7-8 November 2016

On 7-8 th November 2016, 60 people with an interest in the ‘ Trials within Cohorts ’ (TwiCs) approach for randomised controlled trial design met in London. The purpose of this 2 nd TwiCs international symposium was to share perspectives and experiences on ethical aspects of the TwiCs design, discuss how TwiCs relate to the current ethical frame- work, provide a forum in which to discuss and debate ethical issues and identify future directions for conceptual and empirical research. The symposium was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber and organised by members of the TwiCs network led by Clare Relton and attended by people from the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Canada and USA. The two-day sympo- sium enabled an international group to meet and share experiences of the TwiCs design (also known as the ‘ cohort multiple RCT design ’ ), and to discuss plans for future research. Over the two days, invited plenary talks were interspersed by discussions, posters and mini pre- sentations from bioethicists, triallists and health research regulators. Key findings of the symposium were: (1) It is possible to make a compelling case to ethics committees that TwiCs designs are ap- propriate and ethical; (2) The importance of wider considerations around the ethics of inefficient trial designs; and (3) some questions about the ethical requirements for content and timing of informed consent for a study using the TwiCs design need to be decided on a case-by-case basis

Efficacy of dose-escalated chemoradiation on complete tumour response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (RECTAL-BOOST); a phase 2 randomised controlled trial

Purpose Pathological complete tumour response following chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is associated with favourable prognosis and allows organ-sparing treatment strategies. We aimed to investigate the effect of an external radiation boost to the tumour prior to chemoradiation on pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response in LARC. Methods and materials This multicentre, non-blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial followed the trials within cohorts-design, which is a pragmatic trial design allowing cohort participants to be randomized for an experimental intervention. Patients in the intervention group are offered the intervention (and can accept or refuse this), whereas patients in the control group are not notified about the randomisation. Participants of a colorectal cancer cohort referred for chemoradiation of LARC to either of two radiotherapy centres were eligible. Patients were randomised to no boost or an external radiation boost (5 x 3 Gy) without concurrent chemotherapy directly followed by standard pelvic chemoradiation (25 x 2 Gy with concurrent capecitabine). The primary outcome was pathological complete response (pCR, i.e. ypT0N0) in patients with planned surgery at 12 weeks or, as surrogate for pCR, a 2-year sustained clinical complete response for patients treated with an organ preservation strategy. Analyses were intention to treat. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCTXXXXXX. Results Between Sept 2014 and July 2018, 128 patients were randomised. Fifty-one of the 64 (79.7%) patients in the intervention group accepted and received a boost. Compared with the control group, fewer patients in the intervention group had a cT4-stage and a low rectal tumour (31.3% versus 17.2% and 56.3% versus 45.3% respectively), and more patients had a cN2-stage (59.4% versus 70.3% respectively). Rate of pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response was similar between the groups: 23 of 64 (35.9%, 95%CI 24.3-48.9) in the intervention group versus 24 of 64 (37.5%, 95%CI 25.7-50.5) in the control group (OR=0.94 95%CI 0.46-1.92). Near-complete or complete tumour regression was more common in the intervention group: 34 of 49 (69.4%) versus 24 of 53 (45.3%) in the control group (OR=2.74, 95%CI 1.21-6.18). Grade >3 acute toxicity was comparable: 6 of 64 (9.4%) in the intervention group versus 5 of 64 (7.8%) in the control group (OR=1.22 95%CI 0.35-4.22). Conclusion Dose escalation with an external radiotherapy boost to the tumour prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiation did not increase the pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response rate in LARC

Don't forget about the 'R' in cmRCT; Reply to Groenwold and van Smeden

Item does not contain fulltext2 p

Comparison of pathological complete response rates after neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiation followed by delayed surgery in locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who are unfit for chemoradiation (CRT), are often offered short-course radiotherapy followed by delayed surgery (SCRT-delay). This entails a lower radiation dose, no chemotherapy and a shorter treatment period. This may lower their chances for complete tumor response and, as such, organ-sparing approaches. The purpose of this study was to compare the pathological complete response (pCR) rates between neoadjuvant CRT and SCRT-delay in patients with LARC in a nationwide database from the Netherlands. Methods: In the population based Netherlands Cancer Registry, clinical stage III rectal cancer patients, diagnosed between 2008 and 2014, who underwent CRT or SCTR-delay were selected. pCR (ypT0N0), near pCR (ypT0-1N0), and tumor and nodal downstaging were compared between the treatment groups using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: 386 patients underwent SCRT-delay and 3659 patients underwent CRT. The pCR-rate in the SCRT-delay group was significantly lower compared to the CRT-group (6.4% vs. 16.2%, p < 0.001). After adjustment for clinical tumor stage, clinical nodal stage and time interval to surgery, SCRT-delay patients were significantly less likely to reach pCR (adjusted odds ratio 0.3, 95%CI 0.2–0.5). Also, near-pCR (ypT0–1N0) as well as tumor and nodal downstaging was observed less often in the SCRT-delay group. Conclusion: Compared to patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT, those receiving SCRT and delayed surgery are less likely to develop pCR. Novel neoadjuvant treatment strategies for patients not fit enough for CRT are needed to increase their eligibility for organ-sparing treatments

Utility Scores and Preferences for Surgical and Organ-Sparing Approaches for Treatment of Intermediate and High-Risk Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: Organ-sparing approaches, including wait-and-see and local excision, are increasingly being offered to patients with rectal cancer following a good response to neoadjuvant therapy. Preferences regarding these treatment strategies are yet unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the preferences and utility scores for rectal cancer treatment approaches. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SETTING: This study was conducted at the Radiation-Oncology Department of the University Medical Center Utrecht. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven patients with a history of rectal cancer and 38 volunteers were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants assessed 6 hypothetical treatment-outcome scenarios, including short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiation followed by abdominoperineal resection, low anterior resection, local excision, or a wait-and-see approach. The hierarchy in preferences between scenarios was assessed by using ranking. Utilities were estimated with a visual analog scale and time trade-off. RESULTS: Organ-sparing approaches were ranked as the first preferred treatment option by 51% of the participants. Among all scenarios, wait-and-see was most often ranked highest by patients and volunteers (36% and 50%). Meanwhile, a substantial proportion ranked wait-and-see as their lowest preference (38% in patients and 35% in volunteers). Utility scores differed significantly between scenarios. Wait-and-see received a significantly higher score on the visual analog scale than the scenarios including abdominoperineal resection and the scenario including chemoradiation with low anterior resection, and a score similar to the scenarios including local excision and short-course radiotherapy with low anterior resection. LIMITATIONS: The study population consisted of patients with a history of rectal cancer treatment and volunteers related to patients. This may have influenced preferences. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a wide disparity in preferences concerning organ-sparing approaches for rectal cancer in both patients with a history of rectal cancer and volunteers. Wait-and-see is often the highest preferred treatment, but it is also among the least preferred treatment options. These findings give insights into how patients may value the current rectal cancer treatment options. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A521

Utility Scores and Preferences for Surgical and Organ-Sparing Approaches for Treatment of Intermediate and High-Risk Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: Organ-sparing approaches, including wait-and-see and local excision, are increasingly being offered to patients with rectal cancer following a good response to neoadjuvant therapy. Preferences regarding these treatment strategies are yet unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the preferences and utility scores for rectal cancer treatment approaches. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SETTING: This study was conducted at the Radiation-Oncology Department of the University Medical Center Utrecht. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven patients with a history of rectal cancer and 38 volunteers were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants assessed 6 hypothetical treatment-outcome scenarios, including short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiation followed by abdominoperineal resection, low anterior resection, local excision, or a wait-and-see approach. The hierarchy in preferences between scenarios was assessed by using ranking. Utilities were estimated with a visual analog scale and time trade-off. RESULTS: Organ-sparing approaches were ranked as the first preferred treatment option by 51% of the participants. Among all scenarios, wait-and-see was most often ranked highest by patients and volunteers (36% and 50%). Meanwhile, a substantial proportion ranked wait-and-see as their lowest preference (38% in patients and 35% in volunteers). Utility scores differed significantly between scenarios. Wait-and-see received a significantly higher score on the visual analog scale than the scenarios including abdominoperineal resection and the scenario including chemoradiation with low anterior resection, and a score similar to the scenarios including local excision and short-course radiotherapy with low anterior resection. LIMITATIONS: The study population consisted of patients with a history of rectal cancer treatment and volunteers related to patients. This may have influenced preferences. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a wide disparity in preferences concerning organ-sparing approaches for rectal cancer in both patients with a history of rectal cancer and volunteers. Wait-and-see is often the highest preferred treatment, but it is also among the least preferred treatment options. These findings give insights into how patients may value the current rectal cancer treatment options. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A521

The impact of retractor SPONGE-assisted laparoscopic surgery on duration of hospital stay and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal cancer (SPONGE trial) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: To achieve an adequate visual working field during laparoscopic colorectal surgery without disturbance of the small intestine, patients are positioned in the Trendelenburg position. This position results in hemodynamic changes that may increase the risk of cardiopulmonary complications and prolonged hospital stay. Recently, an intraoperative retractor sponge was introduced as an alternative to the Trendelenburg position during laparoscopic surgery. The objective of this trial is to study the impact of the use of an intraoperative retractor sponge on the duration of the hospital stay and risk of perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: The SPONGE trial is a monocenter study and follows the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) design. It will be conducted within a multicenter prospective observational cohort of colorectal cancer patients of all stages, for whom longitudinal clinical data and patient-reported outcomes are collected. Patients within the cohort, who will undergo laparoscopic surgery for distal colon or rectal cancer, are eligible for inclusion and form a subcohort. From this subcohort, a 1:1 random sample will be offered to undergo surgery with the use of the retractor sponge. Patients from the subcohort who are not selected will undergo standard treatment, that is, surgery in the Trendelenburg position. The primary endpoint is the duration of the postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes are duration of surgery; intraoperative blood loss and fluid balance; and postoperative body temperature, oxygenation and complications. Both arms require 94 patients. DISCUSSION: This study is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of sponge-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery in comparison with standard Trendelenburg position on hospital stay and peri- and postoperative complications. Results of this study will also be relevant for other surgical procedures in the pelvic region. The present study is the second randomized controlled trial according to the cmRCT design, which is embedded within our colorectal cancer cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02574013 . Registered 27 September 2015

Validated Pretreatment Prediction Models for Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Rectal Cancer:A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Pretreatment response prediction is crucial to select those patients with rectal cancer who will benefit from organ preservation strategies following (intensified) neoadjuvant therapy and to avoid unnecessary toxicity in those who will not. The combination of individual predictors in multivariable prediction models might improve predictive accuracy. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and critically appraise validated pretreatment prediction models (other than radiomics-based models or image-based deep learning models) for response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with rectal cancer and provide evidence-based recommendations for future research. MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase.com, and Scopus were searched for eligible studies published up to November 2022. A total of 5006 studies were screened and 16 were included for data extraction and risk of bias assessment using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). All selected models were unique and grouped into five predictor categories: clinical, combined, genetics, metabolites, and pathology. Studies generally included patients with intermediate or advanced tumor stages who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Evaluated outcomes were pathological complete response and pathological tumor response. All studies were considered to have a high risk of bias and none of the models were externally validated in an independent study. Discriminative performances, estimated with the area under the curve (AUC), ranged per predictor category from 0.60 to 0.70 (clinical), 0.78 to 0.81 (combined), 0.66 to 0.91 (genetics), 0.54 to 0.80 (metabolites), and 0.71 to 0.91 (pathology). Model calibration outcomes were reported in five studies. Two collagen feature-based models showed the best predictive performance (AUCs 0.83-0.91 and good calibration). In conclusion, some pretreatment models for response prediction in rectal cancer show encouraging predictive potential but, given the high risk of bias in these studies, their value should be evaluated in future, well-designed studies

Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer: Do we all Think the Same? A Review of Multidisciplinary Obstacles and Treatment Recommendations

Lateral lymph nodes in low, locally advanced, rectal cancer have proven implications for local recurrence rates, which increase drastically in the presence of persistently enlarged lateral lymph nodes. These clinical implications warrant a thorough understanding of lateral nodal disease with awareness and knowledge from all three specialties involved – radiology, radiation oncology, and surgery – to ensure proper treatment. Relevant literature for each specialty, including all current guidelines and perspectives, were examined. Variations in definitions and treatment paradigms were evaluated. There is still no consensus for the standardized treatment of lateral nodal disease. Each discipline works according to their own available evidence, but relevant data are scarce. Current international guidelines and standard recommendations for the diagnostics and treatment of lateral lymph nodes are lacking. This results in differing perspectives and interpretations between the disciplines which can lead to challenging communication in an area where multidisciplinary collaboration is essential. This review addresses this by presenting the current evidence, perspectives and practices of each specialty and makes suggestions for each phase of the diagnostic and treatment process for patients with lateral nodal disease. By doing this, steps are taken toward achieving international consensus, and multidisciplinary collaboration

Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer: Do we all Think the Same? A Review of Multidisciplinary Obstacles and Treatment Recommendations

Lateral lymph nodes in low, locally advanced, rectal cancer have proven implications for local recurrence rates, which increase drastically in the presence of persistently enlarged lateral lymph nodes. These clinical implications warrant a thorough understanding of lateral nodal disease with awareness and knowledge from all three specialties involved – radiology, radiation oncology, and surgery – to ensure proper treatment. Relevant literature for each specialty, including all current guidelines and perspectives, were examined. Variations in definitions and treatment paradigms were evaluated. There is still no consensus for the standardized treatment of lateral nodal disease. Each discipline works according to their own available evidence, but relevant data are scarce. Current international guidelines and standard recommendations for the diagnostics and treatment of lateral lymph nodes are lacking. This results in differing perspectives and interpretations between the disciplines which can lead to challenging communication in an area where multidisciplinary collaboration is essential. This review addresses this by presenting the current evidence, perspectives and practices of each specialty and makes suggestions for each phase of the diagnostic and treatment process for patients with lateral nodal disease. By doing this, steps are taken toward achieving international consensus, and multidisciplinary collaboration