Long-term outcomes of the australasian randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study trial.

OBJECTIVE: : We report a multicentered randomized controlled trial across Australia and New Zealand comparing laparoscopic-assisted colon resection (LCR) with open colon resection (OCR) for colon cancer. BACKGROUND: : Colon cancer is a significant worldwide health issue. This trial investigated whether the short-term benefits associated with LCR for colon cancer could be achieved safely, without survival disadvantages, in our region. METHODS: : A total of 601 patients with potentially curable colon cancer were randomized to receive LCR or OCR. Primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and freedom from recurrence rates, compared using an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: : On April 5, 2010, 587 eligible patients were followed for a median of 5.2 years (range, 1 week-11.4 years) with 5-year confirmed follow-up data for survival and recurrence on 567 (96.6%). Significant differences between the 2 trial groups were as follows: LCR patients were older at randomization, and their pathology specimens showed smaller distal resection margins; OCR patients had some worse pathology parameters, but there were no differences in disease stages. There were no significant differences between the LCR and OCR groups in 5-year follow-up of overall survival (77.7% vs 76.0%, P = 0.64), recurrence-free survival (72.7% vs 71.2%, P = 0.70), or freedom from recurrence (86.2% vs 85.6%, P = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: : In spite of some differences in short-term surrogate oncological markers, LCR was not inferior to OCR in direct measures of survival and disease recurrence. These findings emphasize the importance of long-term data in formulating evidence-based practice guidelines.

Short-term outcomes of the Australasian randomized clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the ALCCaS trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy has revolutionized many abdominal surgical procedures. Laparoscopic colectomy has become increasingly popular. The short- and long-term benefits and satisfactory surgical oncological treatment of colorectal cancer by laparoscopic-assisted resection remain topical. The long-term outcomes of all international randomized controlled trials are still awaited, and short-term outcomes are important in the interim. METHODS: Between January 1998 and April 2005, a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial in patients with colon cancer was conducted. Six hundred and one eligible patients were recruited by 33 surgeons from 31 Australian and New Zealand centers. Patients were allocated to colectomy by either laparoscopic-assisted surgery (n = 294) or open surgery (n = 298). Patient demographics and secondary end-points, such as operative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and histopathological data, will be presented in this article. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Survival will be reported only as the study matures. RESULTS: Histopathological parameters were similar between the two groups, except in regard to distal resection margins. There was no statistically significant difference found in postoperative complications, reoperation rate, or perioperative mortality. Statistically significant differences in quicker return of gastrointestinal function and shorter hospital stay were identified in favor of laparoscopic-assisted resection. A statistically significant increased rate of infective complications was seen in cases converted from laparoscopic-assisted to open procedures but with no difference in reoperation or in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted colonic resection gives significant improvements in return of gastrointestinal function and length of stay, with an increased operative time and no difference in the postoperative complication rate.

Ethical issues with the disclosure of surgical trial short-term data.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the distinctions between major surgical and pharmaceutical trials and questions the application of a common ethical paradigm to guide their conduct and reporting. METHODS: Surgical trials differ from other trials in cumulative therapeutic effects, operator dependence, the clinical setting, interdependence of short- and long-term outcomes, and equipoise. A principal tenant of randomized controlled trial management is the maintenance of interim data confidentiality. Its application to complete surgical short-term data is examined across a variety of common clinical trial circumstances that influence data integrity and the reliability of conclusions regarding the benefit-to-risk profile of experimental interventions. RESULTS: Complete perioperative results describe important treatment ends that cannot influence primary outcomes. These short-term results may inform patient consent, teaching and provide valuable procedural insights to surgeons outside trial precincts. CONCLUSION: Structured experimentation standards are necessary. But, the common paradigm applied across all clinical trials and the prohibition on short term data reporting may not serve the achievement of safe and effective advancements in surgery.