MRI in addition to CT in patients scheduled for local therapy of colorectal liver metastases (CAMINO): an international, multicentre, prospective, diagnostic accuracy trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are inconclusive on whether contrast-enhanced MRI using gadoxetic acid and diffusion-weighted imaging should be added routinely to CT in the investigation of patients with colorectal liver metastases who are scheduled for curative liver resection or thermal ablation, or both. Although contrast-enhanced MRI is reportedly superior than contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterisation of colorectal liver metastases, its effect on clinical patient management is unknown. We aimed to assess the clinical effect of an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI on local treatment plan in patients with colorectal liver metastases amenable to local treatment, based on contrast-enhanced CT. METHODS: We did an international, multicentre, prospective, incremental diagnostic accuracy trial in 14 liver surgery centres in the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Italy. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histological proof of colorectal cancer, a WHO performance status score of 0-4, and primary or recurrent colorectal liver metastases, who were scheduled for local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. All patients had contrast-enhanced CT and liver contrast-enhanced MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging and gadoxetic acid as a contrast agent before undergoing local therapy. The primary outcome was change in the local clinical treatment plan (decided by the individual clinics) on the basis of liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings, analysed in the intention-to-image population. The minimal clinically important difference in the proportion of patients who would have change in their local treatment plan due to an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI was 10%. This study is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL8039. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2019, and July 31, 2021, 325 patients with colorectal liver metastases were assessed for eligibility. 298 patients were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat population, including 177 males (59%) and 121 females (41%) with planned local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. A change in the local treatment plan based on liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings was observed in 92 (31%; 95% CI 26-36) of 298 patients. Changes were made for 40 patients (13%) requiring more extensive local therapy, 11 patients (4%) requiring less extensive local therapy, and 34 patients (11%) in whom the indication for curative-intent local therapy was revoked, including 26 patients (9%) with too extensive disease and eight patients (3%) with benign lesions on liver contrast-enhanced MRI (confirmed by a median follow-up of 21·0 months [IQR 17·5-24·0]). INTERPRETATION: Liver contrast-enhanced MRI should be considered in all patients scheduled for local treatment for colorectal liver metastases on the basis of contrast-enhanced CT imaging. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society and Bayer AG - Pharmaceuticals.

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. BACKGROUND: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. METHODS: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. RESULTS: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933.

Immediate versus Postponed Intervention for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.).

Cost-effectiveness of temperature monitoring to help prevent foot ulcer recurrence in people with diabetes: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Diabetes-related foot ulcers are common, costly, and frequently recur. Multiple interventions help prevent these ulcers. However, none of these have been prospectively investigated for cost-effectiveness. Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of at-home skin temperature monitoring to help prevent diabetes-related foot ulcer recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. We randomized 304 persons at high diabetes-related foot ulcer risk to either usual foot care plus daily at-home foot skin temperature monitoring (intervention) or usual care alone (control). Primary outcome was cost-effectiveness based on foot care costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) during 18 months follow-up. Foot care costs included costs for ulcer prevention (e.g., footwear, podiatry) and for ulcer treatment when required (e.g., consultation, hospitalisation, amputation). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for intervention versus usual care using probabilistic sensitivity analysis for willingness-to-pay/accept levels up to €100,000. RESULTS: The intervention had a 45% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-accept of €50,000 per QALY lost. This resulted from (non-significantly) lower foot care costs in the intervention group (€6067 vs. €7376; p = 0.45) because of (significantly) fewer participants with ulcer recurrence(s) in 18 months (36% vs. 47%; p = 0.045); however, QALYs were (non-significantly) lower in the intervention group (1.09 vs. 1.12; p = 0.35), especially in those without foot ulcer recurrence (1.09 vs. 1.17; p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: At-home skin temperature monitoring for diabetes-related foot ulcer prevention compared with usual care is at best equally cost-effective. The intervention resulted in cost-savings due to preventing foot ulcer recurrence and related costs, but this came at the expense of QALY loss, potentially from self-monitoring burdens.

Long-Term Follow-Up of the LEAP Study: Early Versus Delayed Levodopa in Early Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Levodopa in EArly Parkinson's disease study showed no effect of earlier versus later levodopa initiation on Parkinson's disease (PD) progression over 80 weeks. We now report the effects over 5 years. METHODS: The Levodopa in EArly Parkinson's disease study randomly assigned patients to levodopa/carbidopa 300/75 mg daily for 80 weeks (early start) or to placebo for 40 weeks followed by levodopa/carbidopa 300/75 mg daily for 40 weeks (delayed start). Follow-up visits were performed 3 and 5 years after baseline. We assessed the between-group differences in terms of square root transformed total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score at 3 and 5 years with linear regression. We compared the prevalence of dyskinesia, prevalence of wearing off, and the levodopa equivalent daily dose. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients completed the 5-year visit. The adjusted square root transformed total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale did not differ between treatment groups at 3 (estimated difference, 0.17; standard error, 0.13; P = 0.18) and 5 years (estimated difference, 0.24; standard error, 0.13; P = 0.07). At 5 years, 46 of 160 patients in the early-start group and 62 of 161 patients in the delayed-start group experienced dyskinesia (P = 0.06). The prevalence of wearing off and the levodopa equivalent daily dose were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a difference in disease progression or in prevalence of motor complications between patients with early PD starting treatment with a low dose of levodopa 40 weeks earlier versus 40 weeks later over the subsequent 5 years. © 2024 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Patient selection for urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography by endoscopic ultrasound in predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC-2): a multicentre prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. RESULTS: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). CONCLUSION: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15545919.

Oncological Safety and Potential Cost Savings of Routine vs Selective Histopathological Examination After Appendectomy: Results of the Multicenter, Prospective, Cross-Sectional FANCY Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination after appendectomy. BACKGROUND: The necessity of routine histopathological examination after appendectomy has been questioned, but prospective studies investigating the safety of a selective policy are lacking. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, inspection and palpation of the (meso)appendix was performed by the surgeon in patients with suspected appendicitis. The surgeon's opinion on additional value of histopathological examination was reported before sending all specimens to the pathologist. Main outcomes were the number of hypothetically missed appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences benefiting the patient (upper limit two-sided 95% confidence interval below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings after selective histopathological examination. RESULTS: Seven thousand three hundred thirty-nine patients were included. After a selective policy, 4966/7339 (67.7%) specimens would have been refrained from histopathological examination. Appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences would have been missed in 22/4966 patients. In 5/22, residual disease was completely resected during additional surgery. Hence, an appendiceal neoplasm with clinical consequences benefiting the patient would have been missed in 1.01:1000 patients (upper limit 95% confidence interval 1.61:1000). In contrast, twice as many patients (10/22) would not have been exposed to potential harm due to re-resections without clear benefit, whereas consequences were neither beneficial nor harmful in the remaining seven. Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were €725,400 per 10,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Selective histopathological examination after appendectomy for suspected appendicitis is oncologically safe and will likely result in a reduction of pathologists' workload, less costs, and fewer re-resections without clear benefit.

Ultra-low-dose CT versus chest X-ray for patients suspected of pulmonary disease at the emergency department: a multicentre randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chest CT displays chest pathology better than chest X-ray (CXR). We evaluated the effects on health outcomes of replacing CXR by ultra-low-dose chest-CT (ULDCT) in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. METHODS: Pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial in patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. Between 31 January 2017 and 31 May 2018, every month, participating centres were randomly allocated to using ULDCT or CXR. Primary outcome was functional health at 28 days, measured by the Short Form (SF)-12 physical component summary scale score (PCS score), non-inferiority margin was set at 1 point. Secondary outcomes included hospital admission, hospital length of stay (LOS) and patients in follow-up because of incidental findings. RESULTS: 2418 consecutive patients (ULDCT: 1208 and CXR: 1210) were included. Mean SF-12 PCS score at 28 days was 37.0 for ULDCT and 35.9 for CXR (difference 1.1; 95% lower CI: 0.003). After ULDCT, 638/1208 (52.7%) patients were admitted (median LOS of 4.8 days; IQR 2.1-8.8) compared with 659/1210 (54.5%) patients after CXR (median LOS 4.6 days; IQR 2.1-8.8). More ULDCT patients were in follow-up because of incidental findings: 26 (2.2%) versus 4 (0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term functional health was comparable between ULDCT and CXR, as were hospital admissions and LOS, but more incidental findings were found in the ULDCT group. Our trial does not support routine use of ULDCT in the work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6163.

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

Less bleeding by omitting aspirin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: Rationale and design of the LEGACY study.

BACKGROUND: Early aspirin withdrawal, also known as P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can reduce bleeding without a trade-off in efficacy. Still the average daily bleeding risk is highest during the first months and it remains unclear if aspirin can be omitted immediately following PCI. METHODS: The LEGACY study is an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of immediate P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months in 3,090 patients. Patients are randomized immediately following successful PCI for NSTE-ACS to 75-100 mg aspirin once daily versus no aspirin. The primary hypothesis is that immediately omitting aspirin is superior to DAPT with respect to major or minor bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, while maintaining noninferiority for the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke compared to DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: The LEGACY study is the first randomized study that is specifically designed to evaluate the impact of immediately omitting aspirin, and thus treating patients with P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, as compared to DAPT for 12 months on bleeding and ischemic events within 12 months following PCI for NSTE-ACS.