Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects. RESULTS: Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010). CONCLUSION: MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques. LAY SUMMARY: Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Guidelines for time-to-event end point definitions in breast cancer trials: results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials)†.

BACKGROUND: Using surrogate end points for overall survival, such as disease-free survival, is increasingly common in randomized controlled trials. However, the definitions of several of these time-to-event (TTE) end points are imprecisely which limits interpretation and cross-trial comparisons. The estimation of treatment effects may be directly affected by the definitions of end points. The DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials) aims to provide recommendations for definitions of TTE end points. We report guidelines for randomized cancer clinical trials (RCTs) in breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A literature review was carried out to identify TTE end points (primary or secondary) reported in publications of randomized trials or guidelines. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts proposed recommendations for the definitions of these end points based on a validated consensus method that formalize the degree of agreement among experts. RESULTS: Recommended guidelines for the definitions of TTE end points commonly used in RCTs for breast cancer are provided for non-metastatic and metastatic settings. CONCLUSION: The use of standardized definitions should facilitate comparisons of trial results and improve the quality of trial design and reporting. These guidelines could be of particular interest to those involved in the design, conducting, reporting, or assessment of RCT.

Impact of sentinel node biopsy on long-term quality of life in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess long-term quality of life (QoL) over a period of 6 years in women with breast cancer (BC) who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), or SLNB followed by ALND. METHODS: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ)-C30 and the EORTC-QLQ-BR-23 questionnaires were used to assess QoL before surgery, just after surgery, 6, 12 and 72 months later. The longitudinal effect of surgical modalities on QoL was assessed with a mixed model analysis of variance for repeated measurements. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighteen BC patients were initially included. The median follow-up was 6 years. During the follow-up, 61 patients died. None of the patients of the SLNB group developed lymphedema during follow-up and the relapse rate was similar in the different groups (P=0.62). Before surgery, global health status (P=0.52) and arm symptoms (BRAS) (P=0.99) QoL scores were similar whatever the surgical procedure. The BRAS score (P=0.0001) was better in the SLNB group 72 months after surgery. Moreover, during follow-up, patients treated with SLNB had lower arm symptoms scores than ALND patients and there was no difference for arm symptoms between patients treated with ALND and those treated with SLNB followed by complementary ALND. CONCLUSION: Long-term follow-up showed that SLNB was associated with less morbidity than ALND.