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.

Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6-9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery. OBJECTIVES: The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches. DESIGN: Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work. SETTING: Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited. RESULTS: During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Predicting blood transfusion in patients undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy.

AIM: To evaluate predictors of allogenic blood transfusion requirements in patients undergoing minimal invasive oesophagectomy at a tertiary high volume centre for oesophago-gastric surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing minimal access oesophagectomy in our department between January 2010 and December 2011. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they required a blood transfusion at any time during their index admission. Factors that have been shown to influence perioperative blood transfusion requirements in major surgery were included in the analysis. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of patient and perioperative characteristics on transfusion requirements during the index admission. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients underwent minimal access oesophagectomy, of which 61 patients had a laparoscopic assisted oesophagectomy and 19 patients had a minimal invasive oesophagectomy. Perioperative blood transfusion was required in 28 patients at any time during hospital admission. On binary logistic regression analysis, a lower preoperative haemoglobin concentration (p < 0.01), suffering a significant complication (p < 0.005) and laparoscopic assisted oesophagectomy (p < 0.05) were independent predictors of blood transfusion requirements. DISCUSSION: It has been reported that requirement for blood transfusion can affect long-term outcomes in oesophageal cancer resection. Two factors which could be addressed preoperatively; haemoglobin concentration and type of oesophageal resection, may be valuable in predicting blood transfusions in patients undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy. CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed that preoperative haemoglobin concentration, occurrence of significant complications and type of minimal access oesophagectomy predicted blood transfusion requirements in the patient population examined.

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.

Bravo catheter-free pH monitoring: normal values, concordance, optimal diagnostic thresholds, and accuracy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Bravo pH capsule is a catheter-free intraesophageal pH monitoring system that avoids the discomfort of an indwelling catheter. The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to obtain normal values for the first and second 24-hour recording periods using a Bravo capsule placed transnasally 5 cm above the upper border of the lower esophageal sphincter determined by manometry and to assess concordance between the 2 periods, (2) to determine the optimal discriminating threshold for identifying patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and (3) to validate this threshold and to identify the recording period with the greatest accuracy. METHODS: Normal values for a manometrically positioned, transnasally inserted Bravo capsule were determined in 50 asymptomatic subjects. A test population of 50 subjects (25 asymptomatic, 25 with GERD) then was monitored to determine the best discriminating thresholds. The thresholds for the first, second, and combined (48-hour) recording periods then were validated in a separate group of 115 patients. RESULTS: In asymptomatic subjects, the values measured using a manometrically positioned Bravo pH capsule were similar between the first and second 24-hour periods of recording. The highest level of accuracy with Bravo was observed when an abnormal composite pH score was obtained in the first or second 24-hour period of monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Normal values for esophageal acid exposure were defined for a manometrically positioned, transnasally inserted, Bravo pH capsule. An abnormal composite pH score, obtained in either the first or second 24-hour recording period, was the most accurate method of identifying patients with GERD.

Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: why, when, and what to do.

The incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is increasing and if left untreated can lead to significant patient morbidity and even death. The disease results from the abnormal reflux of gastric contents into the distal esophagus causing symptoms in most and subsequent mucosal damage in some. Several investigations can be used to confirm the diagnosis, but most are dependent on the presence of sequelae and complications of the disease. The physiologic test of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring has proved to be the most sensitive and specific diagnostic investigation. It measures increased esophageal exposure to gastric juice by detecting the concentration of hydrogen ions (pH <4) in the distal esophagus. The technique measures gastric juice exposure at a point 5 cm above the manometrically determined upper border of the lower esophageal sphincter. The exposure is measured in components of frequency of reflux episodes, duration of reflux episodes, and accumulated exposure time. The components are integrated into a composite score, which is reproducible, gender and race independent, and correlates with the degree of esophageal epithelial damage determined histologically. The composite score has been shown to be the most reliable measurement of a therapeutic acid suppression regimen or an effective antireflux operation.

Excellent quality of life after Nissen fundoplication depends on successful elimination of reflux symptoms and not the invasiveness of the surgical approach.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life, poor in patients with reflux disease, improves significantly after an antireflux operation. The aim of this study was to determine the relative importance of the operative approach used for a fundoplication, as well as the successful elimination of reflux symptoms on long-term quality of life in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: A questionnaire, including the medical outcome study short-form health survey (SF-36), was completed by 105 patients who had undergone either a laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (n = 72) or a transthoracic Nissen fundoplication (n = 33); median follow-up was 25 and 31 months, respectively. Patients were classified as completely or incompletely relieved of reflux symptoms based on the frequency of reflux symptoms and the use of acid-suppression medication. RESULTS: Patients selected for transthoracic Nissen fundoplication had significantly worse preoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease based on the presence of a large hiatal hernia, Barrett's esophagus, or stricture. Long-term quality of life was similar for the two approaches, but was significantly decreased in patients with recurrent reflux symptoms. Compared with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication patients, transthoracic Nissen fundoplication patients were less likely to use acid-suppression medication and tended to be more satisfied with their operation. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term quality of life was independent of the invasiveness of the procedure, but significantly dependent on successful elimination of reflux symptoms and the necessity for acid suppression medication. Patients who underwent a transthoracic Nissen fundoplication, despite having more advanced disease preoperatively, tended to have less reflux symptoms and less long-term acid-suppression medication usage after their procedure. These findings support the continued use of a transthoracic antireflux procedure in patients with advanced gastroesophageal reflux disease.