NEUROlogical Prognosis After Cardiac Arrest in Kids (NEUROPACK) study: protocol for a prospective multicentre clinical prediction model derivation and validation study in children after cardiac arrest.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, we are unable to accurately predict mortality or neurological morbidity following resuscitation after paediatric out of hospital (OHCA) or in-hospital (IHCA) cardiac arrest. A clinical prediction model may improve communication with parents and families and risk stratification of patients for appropriate postcardiac arrest care. This study aims to the derive and validate a clinical prediction model to predict, within 1 hour of admission to the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU), neurodevelopmental outcome at 3 months after paediatric cardiac arrest. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective study of children (age: >24 hours and <16 years), admitted to 1 of the 24 participating PICUs in the UK and Ireland, following an OHCA or IHCA. Patients are included if requiring more than 1 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation at PICU admission Children who had cardiac arrests in PICU or neonatal intensive care unit will be excluded. Candidate variables will be identified from data submitted to the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network registry. Primary outcome is neurodevelopmental status, assessed at 3 months by telephone interview using the Vineland Adaptive Behavioural Score II questionnaire. A clinical prediction model will be derived using logistic regression with model performance and accuracy assessment. External validation will be performed using the Therapeutic Hypothermia After Paediatric Cardiac Arrest trial dataset. We aim to identify 370 patients, with successful consent and follow-up of 150 patients. Patient inclusion started 1 January 2018 and inclusion will continue over 18 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review of this protocol was completed by 27 September 2017 at the Wales Research Ethics Committee 5, 17/WA/0306. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03574025.

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Acute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficult to conduct due to issues surrounding recruitment and equipoise. The LaCeS (randomised controlled trial of Laparoscopic versus open Colorectal Surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive, phase III trial of laparoscopic versus open acute colorectal resection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The LaCeS feasibility trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive eitherlaparoscopic or open surgery. The trial aims to recruit at least 66 patients from five acute general surgical units across the UK. Patients over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of acute colorectal pathology requiring resection on clinical and radiological/endoscopic investigations, with a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death classification of urgent will be considered eligible for participation. The primary outcome is recruitment. Secondary outcomes include assessing the safety profile of laparoscopic surgery using intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, conversion rates and patient-safety indicators as surrogate markers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes will also be reported. The trial will contain an embedded qualitative study to assess clinician and patient acceptability of trial processes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The LaCeS feasibility trial is approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber, Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 15/ YH/0542). The results from the trial will be presented at national and international colorectal conferences and will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15681041; Pre-results.

Radical cystectomy (bladder removal) against intravesical BCG immunotherapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (BRAVO): a protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: High-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease that can be difficult to predict. While around 25% of cancers progress to invasion and metastases, the remaining majority of tumours remain within the bladder. It is uncertain whether patients with HRNMIBC are better treated with intravesical maintenance BCG (mBCG) immunotherapy or primary radical cystectomy (RC). A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare these two different treatments but may be difficult to recruit to and has not been attempted to date. Before undertaking such an RCT, it is important to understand whether such a comparison is possible and how best to achieve it. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BRAVO is a multi-centre, parallel-group, mixed-methods, individually randomised, controlled, feasibility study for patients with HRNMIBC. Participants will be randomised to receive either mBCG immunotherapy or RC. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of performing the definitive phase III trial via estimation of eligibility and recruitment rates, assessing uptake of allocated treatment and compliance with mBCG, determining quality-of-life questionnaire completion rates and exploring reasons expressed by patients for declining recruitment into the study. We aim to recruit 60 participants from six centres in the UK. Surgical trials with disparate treatment options find recruitment challenging from both the patient and clinician perspective. By building on the experiences of other similar trials through implementing a comprehensive training package aimed at clinicians to address these challenges (qualitative substudy), we hope that we can demonstrate that a phase III trial is feasible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has ethical approval (16/YH/0268). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, the funders and the National Health Service through traditional publishing and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12509361; Pre results.

Breast-cancer adjuvant therapy with zoledronic acid.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that the adjuvant use of bisphosphonates reduces rates of recurrence and death in patients with early-stage breast cancer. We conducted a study to determine whether treatment with zoledronic acid, in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, would improve disease outcomes in such patients. METHODS: In this open-label phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 3360 patients to receive standard adjuvant systemic therapy either with or without zoledronic acid. The zoledronic acid was administered every 3 to 4 weeks for 6 doses and then every 3 to 6 months to complete 5 years of treatment. The primary end point of the study was disease-free survival. A second interim analysis revealed that a prespecified boundary for lack of benefit had been crossed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 59 months, there was no significant between-group difference in the primary end point, with a rate of disease-free survival of 77% in each group (adjusted hazard ratio in the zoledronic acid group, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.13; P=0.79). Disease recurrence or death occurred in 377 patients in the zoledronic acid group and 375 of those in the control group. The numbers of deaths--243 in the zoledronic acid group and 276 in the control group--were also similar, resulting in rates of overall survival of 85.4% in the zoledronic acid group and 83.1% in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.01; P=0.07). In the zoledronic acid group, there were 17 confirmed cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw (cumulative incidence, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.7; P<0.001) and 9 suspected cases; there were no cases in the control group. Rates of other adverse effects were similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings do not support the routine use of zoledronic acid in the adjuvant management of breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals and the National Cancer Research Network; AZURE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN79831382.).