Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improves survival compared with surgery alone for patients with oesophageal cancer. The OE05 trial assessed whether increasing the duration and intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy further improved survival compared with the current standard regimen. METHODS: OE05 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Patients with surgically resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma classified as stage cT1N1, cT2N1, cT3N0/N1, or cT4N0/N1 were recruited from 72 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included WHO performance status 0 or 1, adequate respiratory, cardiac, and liver function, white blood cell count at least 3 × 109 cells per L, platelet count at least 100 × 109 platelets per L, and a glomerular filtration rate at least 60 mL/min. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) using a computerised minimisation program with a random element and stratified by centre and tumour stage, to receive two cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; two 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin [80 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1] and fluorouracil [1 g/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-4]) or four cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX; four 3-weekly cycles of epirubicin [50 mg/m2] and cisplatin [60 mg/m2] intravenously on day 1, and capecitabine [1250 mg/m2] daily throughout the four cycles) before surgery, stratified according to centre and clinical disease stage. Neither patients nor study staff were masked to treatment allocation. Two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field (abdomen and thorax) lymphadenectomy was done within 4-6 weeks of completion of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, and primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (number 01852072) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00041262), and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2005, and Oct 31, 2011, 897 patients were recruited and 451 were assigned to the CF group and 446 to the ECX group. By Nov 14, 2016, 327 (73%) of 451 patients in the CF group and 302 (68%) of 446 in the ECX group had died. Median survival was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-26·3) with CF and 26·1 months (22·5-29·7) with ECX (hazard ratio 0·90 (95% CI 0·77-1·05, p=0·19). No unexpected chemotherapy toxicity was seen, and neutropenia was the most commonly reported event (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia: 74 [17%] of 446 patients in the CF group vs 101 [23%] of 441 people in the ECX group). The proportions of patients with postoperative complications (224 [56%] of 398 people for whom data were available in the CF group and 233 [62%] of 374 in the ECX group; p=0·089) were similar between the two groups. One patient in the ECX group died of suspected treatment-related neutropenic sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Four cycles of neoadjuvant ECX compared with two cycles of CF did not increase survival, and cannot be considered standard of care. Our study involved a large number of centres and detailed protocol with comprehensive prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in a patient population confined to people with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction (Siewert types 1 and 2). Alternative chemotherapy regimens and neoadjuvant chemoradiation are being investigated to improve outcomes for patients with oesophageal carcinoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London.

A comparative study of survival after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer is increasing in incidence worldwide. Minimally invasive techniques have been used to perform oesophagectomy, but concerns regarding these techniques remain. Since its description by Cuschieri in 1992, the use of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has increased, but still only used in a minority of resections in the UK in 2009. In particular, there has been reluctance to use minimally invasive (thoracoscopic and laparoscopic) techniques in more advanced cancers for fears regarding the adequacy of the oncological resection. In order to identify any factors that could affect survival, we undertook a retrospective analysis on all patients who underwent surgery in our department over an 8-year period. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis was undertaken on all patients who underwent oesophagectomy in a tertiary upper gastrointestinal surgery unit, from 2005 to 2012 inclusive. Data were collected from the departmental database and case note review, with follow-up and survival data to time of data collection. The survival data were analysed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models to determine which variables affected survival. Variables examined included age, tumour position, tumour stage (T0, 1, 2 vs T3, 4), nodal stage (N0 vs N1), tumour histology, completeness of resection (R0 vs R1), use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and operative technique (thoracoscopic/laparoscopic (MIO) vs laparoscopic abdomen/open chest (Lap assisted) vs Open. RESULTS: 334 patients underwent oesophagectomy between 2005 and 2012. Male to female ratio was 3.75:1, with a mean age of 64 years (range 36-87). There were 83 open oesophagectomies, 187 laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomies and 64 minimally invasive oesophagectomies. Following univariate regression analysis the following factors were found to be correlated to survival: use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard Ratio 2.889, 95 % CI 1.737-4.806), T stage 3 or 4 (3.749, 2.475-5.72), Node positive (5.225, 3.561-7.665), R1 resection (2.182, 1.425-3.341), type of operation (MIO compared to open oesophagectomy) (0.293, 0.158-0.541). There was no significant relationship between age, tumour position or tumour histology and length of survival. When these factors were entered into a multivariate model, the independently significant factors correlated to survival were found to be T stage 3 or 4 (HR 1.969, 1.248-3.105), Node positive (3.833, 2.548-5.766) and type of operation (MIO compared to open) (0.5186, 0.277-0.972). CONCLUSION: Multiple small studies have found reduced pulmonary complication rates and duration of hospital stay when using a minimally invasive approach compared to open. Concerns in the literature over long-term outcomes, however, have led to limited utilisation of this method, especially in advanced disease. The data from this large study show significantly better survival following operations performed using minimally invasive techniques compared to open, however, we have not adjusted for some known or unknown confounding factors. International and national RCTs, however, will provide more information in due course.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10386621.

The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer--the ROMIO (Randomized Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for evidence of the clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but randomized controlled trials in surgery are often difficult to conduct. The ROMIO (Randomized Open or Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy) study will establish the feasibility of a main trial which will examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive and open surgical procedures for the treatment of esophageal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT), in two centers (University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust) will examine numbers of incident and eligible patients who consent to participate in the ROMIO study. Interventions will include esophagectomy by: (1) open gastric mobilization and right thoracotomy, (2) laparoscopic gastric mobilization and right thoracotomy, and (3) totally minimally invasive surgery (in the Bristol center only). The primary outcomes of the feasibility study will be measures of recruitment, successful development of methods to monitor quality of surgery and fidelity to a surgical protocol, and development of a core outcome set to evaluate esophageal cancer surgery. The study will test patient-reported outcomes measures to assess recovery, methods to blind participants, assessments of surgical morbidity, and methods to capture cost and resource use. ROMIO will integrate methods to monitor and improve recruitment using audio recordings of consultations between recruiting surgeons, nurses, and patients to provide feedback for recruiting staff. DISCUSSION: The ROMIO study aims to establish efficient methods to undertake a main trial of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for esophageal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The pilot trial has Current Controlled Trials registration number ISRCTN59036820(25/02/2013) at http://www.controlled-trials.com; the ROMIO trial record at that site gives a link to the original version of the study protocol.

Right hepatic artery false aneurysm secondary to acalculous cholecystitis.

The present report describes a case of an extrahepatic right hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm caused by acalculous cholecystitis. An 85-year-old man was admitted with abdominal pain, cachexia and jaundice. A CT scan showed a saccular false right hepatic artery aneurysm within a soft tissue and fluid mass that was causing biliary obstruction. The soft tissue mass raised the possibility of malignant disease, but this resolved slowly after a period of time and on reviewing the patient's history the only upper gastrointestinal problem noted was an episode of acalculous cholecystitis 3 months previously, which was believed to be the cause of the pseudoaneurysm. The false aneurysm was treated successfully with coil embolisation and the patient recovered fully from this illness.