Hughes abdominal closure versus standard mass closure to reduce incisional hernias following surgery for colorectal cancer: the HART RCT.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias can cause chronic pain and complications and affect quality of life. Surgical repair requires health-care resources and has a significant associated failure rate. A prospective, multicentre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial was conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Hughes abdominal closure method compared with standard mass closure following surgery for colorectal cancer. The study randomised, in a 1 : 1 ratio, 802 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer from 28 surgical departments in UK centres. INTERVENTION: Hughes abdominal closure or standard mass closure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year, as assessed by clinical examination. Within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses over 1 year were conducted from an NHS and a social care perspective. A key secondary outcome was quality of life, and other outcomes included the incidence of incisional hernias as detected by computed tomography scanning. RESULTS: The incidence of incisional hernia at 1-year clinical examination was 50 (14.8%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 57 (17.1%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.27; p = 0.4). In year 2, the incidence of incisional hernia was 78 (28.7%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 84 (31.8%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.25; p = 0.43). Computed tomography scanning identified a total of 301 incisional hernias across both arms, compared with 100 identified by clinical examination at the 1-year follow-up. Computed tomography scanning missed 16 incisional hernias that were picked up by clinical examination. Hughes abdominal closure was found to be less cost-effective than standard mass closure. The mean incremental cost for patients undergoing Hughes abdominal closure was £616.45 (95% confidence interval -£699.56 to £1932.47; p = 0.3580). Quality of life did not differ significantly between the study arms at any time point. LIMITATIONS: As this was a pragmatic trial, the control arm allowed surgeon discretion in the approach to standard mass closure, introducing variability in the techniques and equipment used. Intraoperative randomisation may result in a loss of equipoise for some surgeons. Follow-up was limited to 2 years, which may not have been enough time to see a difference in the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Hughes abdominal closure did not significantly reduce the incidence of incisional hernias detected by clinical examination and was less cost-effective at 1 year than standard mass closure in colorectal cancer patients. Computed tomography scanning may be more effective at identifying incisional hernias than clinical examination, but the clinical benefit of this needs further research. FUTURE WORK: An extended follow-up using routinely collected NHS data sets aims to report on incisional hernia rates at 2-5 years post surgery to investigate any potential mortality benefit of the closure methods. Furthermore, the proportion of incisional hernias identified by a computed tomography scan (at 1 and 2 years post surgery), but not during clinical examination (occult hernias), proceeding to surgical repair within 3-5 years after the initial operation will be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN25616490. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bowel cancer treatment involves surgery for the majority of patients. A complication of this surgery is the formation of a hernia at the site of the incision in the abdominal wall, known as an incisional hernia. The lining of the abdomen, fat or the intestine can squeeze through the gap and form a lump under the skin. An incisional hernia can form any time after surgery and can cause serious complications and pain, and can also affect the patient's quality of life. Surgery to correct incisional hernias is not always successful, so finding a way of preventing them is important. This research compares the traditional way of sewing up the abdomen, where the two sides are brought together in one layer with a continuous thread, with an alternative method called the Hughes abdominal closure method/Hughes repair. In the Hughes repair, a series of horizontal and vertical stitches are arranged to spread the load and ease the tension across the wound. A total of 802 patients from 28 sites in the UK were recruited to the trial. Half of the patients were randomly allocated to have traditional abdominal closure and half were randomised to have Hughes abdominal closure. All were followed up for 1 year after surgery to assess whether or not an incisional hernia had occurred. We also assessed quality of life during follow-up, and we compared the costs and benefits of each procedure to see which option was the better value for money. By comparing the results from the two methods, it was hoped that the best method of abdominal closure to reduce the risk of an incisional hernia occurring would be found. The analysis of the data suggested that the risk of an incisional hernia was no different with either closure method. Furthermore, Hughes abdominal closure was more expensive and provided less value for money than standard abdominal closure.

Phase II multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial of ustekinumab in adolescents with new-onset type 1 diabetes (USTEK1D): trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Most individuals newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have 10%-20% of beta-cell function remaining at the time of diagnosis. Preservation of residual beta-cell function at diagnosis may improve glycaemic control and reduce longer-term complications.Immunotherapy has the potential to preserve endogenous beta-cell function and thereby improve metabolic control even in poorly compliant individuals. We propose to test ustekinumab (STELARA), a targeted and well-tolerated therapy that may halt T-cell and cytokine-mediated destruction of beta-cells in the pancreas at the time of diagnosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a double-blind phase II study to assess the safety and efficacy of ustekinumab in 72 children and adolescents aged 12-18 with new-onset T1D.Participants should have evidence of residual functioning beta-cells (serum C-peptide level >0.2nmol/L in the mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) and be positive for at least one islet autoantibody (GAD, IA-2, ZnT8) to be eligible.Participants will be given ustekinumab/placebo subcutaneously at weeks 0, 4 and 12, 20, 28, 36 and 44 in a dose depending on the body weight and will be followed for 12 months after dose 1.MMTTs will be used to measure the efficacy of ustekinumab for preserving C-peptide area under the curve at week 52 compared with placebo. Secondary objectives include further investigations into the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, patient and parent questionnaires, alternative methods for measuring insulin production and exploratory mechanistic work. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial received research ethics approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 in September 2018 and began recruiting in December 2018.The results will be disseminated using highly accessed, peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14274380.

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART)-abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: feasibility trial for a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Incisional hernias are common complications of midline abdominal closure. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. There is evidence to suggest this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared Hughes repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation. This paper aims to test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a comparison of abdominal wall closure methods following midline incisional surgery for colorectal cancer, in preparation to a definitive randomised controlled trial. DESIGN AND SETTING: A feasibility trial (with 1:1 randomisation) conducted perioperatively during colorectal cancer surgery. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing midline incisional surgery for resection of colorectal cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Comparison of two suture techniques (Hughes repair or standard mass closure) for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: A 30-patient feasibility trial assessed recruitment, randomisation, deliverability and early safety of the surgical techniques used. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were randomised from 43 patients recruited and consented, over a 5-month period. 14 and 16 patients were randomised to arms A and B, respectively. There was one superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and two organ space SSIs reported in arm A, and two superficial SSIs and one complete wound dehiscence in arm B. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions reported in either arm. Independent data monitoring committee found no early safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility trial found no early safety concerns and demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to patients. Progression to the pilot and main phases of the trial has now commenced following approval by the independent data monitoring committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 25616490.

Chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with oesophageal cancer (SCOPE1): a multicentre, phase 2/3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is an alternative to surgery for the curative treatment of oesophageal carcinoma. The SCOPE1 trial aimed to investigate the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based definitive CRT in patients with localised oesophageal squamous-cell cancer and adenocarcinomas to assess activity, safety, and feasibility of use. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older from UK radiotherapy centres who had non-metastatic, histologically confirmed carcinoma of the oesophagus (adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell, or undifferentiated; WHO status 0-1; stage I-III disease) and been selected to receive definitive CRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central computerised system using stratified minimisation (with an 80:20 random element) to receive CRT alone or CRT with cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly), stratified by recruiting hospital, primary reason for not having surgery, tumour histology, and tumour stage. CRT consisted of cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) (day 1) and capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice daily (days 1-21) for four cycles; cycles three and four were given concurrently with 50 Gy in 25 fractions of radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were treatment failure free at week 24 for the phase 2 trial and overall survival for the phase 3 trial, both measured from randomisation. We analysed data by intention to treat. This trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 47718479. FINDINGS: 258 patients (129 assigned to each treatment group) from 36 UK centres were recruited between Feb 7, 2008, and Feb 22, 2012. Recruitment was stopped without continuation to phase 3 because the trial met criteria for futility, but we continued to follow-up recruited patients until all had reached at least 24-week follow-up (median follow-up of patients who survived was 16.8 months [IQR 11.2-24.5]). Fewer patients were treatment failure free at 24 weeks in the CRT plus cetuximab group (79 of 119 patients [66·4%, 90% CI 58·6-73·6]) than in the CRT only group (93 of 121 patients [76.9%, 69.7-83.0]). The CRT plus cetuximab group also had shorter median overall survival (22.1 months [95% CI 15.1-24.5] vs 25.4 months [20.5-37.9]; adjusted HR 1.53 [95% CI 1.03-2.27]; p=0.035). Patients who received CRT plus cetuximab had more non-haematological grade 3 or 4 toxicities (102 [79%] of 129 patients vs 81 [63%] of 129 patients; p=0.004). The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were low white blood cell count (14 [11%] in the CRT plus cetuximab group vs 21 [16%] in the CRT only group), low absolute neutrophil count (15 [12%] vs 24 [19%]), fatigue (26 [20%] vs 25 [19%]), and dysphagia (35 [27%] vs 37 [29%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy cannot be recommended for patients with oesophageal cancer suitable for definitive CRT. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.