Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a review of systematic reviews on the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery across a mix of intracavity procedures, using evidence mapping to inform the decision makers on the best utilisation of robotic-assisted surgery. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included systematic reviews with randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials describing any clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library from 2017 to 2023. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We first presented the number of systematic reviews distributed in different specialties. We then mapped the body of evidence across selected procedures and synthesised major findings of clinical outcomes. We used a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The overlap of primary studies was managed by the corrected covered area method. RESULTS: Our search identified 165 systematic reviews published addressing clinical evidence of robotic-assisted surgery. We found that for all outcomes except operative time, the evidence was largely positive or neutral for robotic-assisted surgery versus both open and laparoscopic alternatives. Evidence was more positive versus open. The evidence for the operative time was mostly negative. We found that most systematic reviews were of low quality due to a failure to deal with the inherent bias in observational evidence. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery has a strong clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the expanded use of robotic-assisted surgery in six common intracavity procedures, which may provide an opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally invasive surgeries. Given the high incremental cost of robotic-assisted surgery and longer operative time, future economic studies are required to determine the optimal use of robotic-assisted surgery capacity.

Implementation of a national smoke-free prison policy: an economic evaluation within the Tobacco in Prisons (TIPs) study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of a smoke-free prison policy in Scotland, through assessments of the trade-offs between costs (healthcare and non-healthcare-related expenditure) and outcomes (health and non-health-related non-monetary consequences) of implementing the policy. DESIGN: A health economic evaluation consisting of three analyses (cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility), from the perspectives of the healthcare payer, prison service, people in custody and operational staff, assessed the trade-offs between costs and outcomes. Costs associated with the implementation of the policy, healthcare resource use and personal spend on nicotine products were considered, alongside health and non-health outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of the policy was evaluated over 12-month and lifetime horizons (short term and long term). SETTING: Scotland's national prison estate. PARTICIPANTS: People in custody and operational prison staff. INTERVENTION: Implementation of a comprehensive (indoor and outdoor) smoke-free policy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concentration of secondhand smoke, health-related quality of life (health utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)) and various non-health outcomes (eg, incidents of assaults and fires). RESULTS: The short-term analyses suggest cost savings for people in custody and staff, improvements in concentration of secondhand smoke, with no consistent direction of change across other outcomes. The long-term analysis demonstrated that implementing smoke-free policy was cost-effective over a lifetime for people in custody and staff, with approximate cost savings of £28 000 and £450, respectively, and improvement in health-related quality of life of 0.971 QALYs and 0.262, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementing a smoke-free prison policy is cost-effective over the short term and long term for people in custody and staff.

A protocol for the economic evaluation of the smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial III (CPIT III).

INTRODUCTION: Smoking results in an average 10-year loss of life, but smokers who permanently quit before age 40 can expect a near normal lifespan. Pregnancy poses a good opportunity to help women to stop; around 80% of women in the UK have a baby, most of whom are less than 40 years of age. Smoking prevalence during pregnancy is high: 17%-23% in the UK. Smoking during pregnancy causes low birth weight and increases the risk of premature birth. After birth, passive smoking is linked to sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory diseases and increased likelihood of taking up smoking. These risks impact the long-term health of the child with associated increase in health costs. Emerging evidence suggests that offering financial incentives to pregnant women to quit is highly cost effective.This protocol describes the economic evaluation of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial III, CPIT III) designed to establish whether offering financial incentives, in addition to usual care, is effective and cost effective in helping pregnant women to quit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The economic evaluation will identify, measure and value resource use and outcomes from CPIT III, comparing participants randomised to either usual care or usual care plus up to £400 financial incentives. Within-trial and long-term analyses will be conducted from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective; the outcome for both analyses will be quality adjusted life-years measured using EQ-5D-5L. Patient level data collected during the trial will be used for the within-trial analysis, with an additional outcome of cotinine validated quit rates at 34-38 weeks gestation and 6 months postpartum. The long-term model will be informed by data from the trial and published literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15236311; Pre-results (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15236311).

Evidencing the impact of cancer trials: insights from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework.

INTRODUCTION: An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. METHODS: The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. RESULTS: Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. DISCUSSION: Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.

Eradicating hepatitis C: Are novel screening strategies for people who inject drugs cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: In developed countries, people who inject drugs (PWID) have a high prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV), yet they are often under-diagnosed. The World Health Organization has set 2030 as a target year for HCV elimination. To meet this target, improving screening in convenient community settings in order to reach infected undiagnosed individuals is a priority. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of alternative novel strategies for diagnosing HCV infection in PWID. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to compare HCV screening at needle exchange centres, substance misuse services and at community pharmacies, with the standard practice of detection during general practitioners' consultations. A decision tree model was developed to assess the incremental cost per positive diagnosis, and a Markov model explored the net monetary benefit (NMB) and the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Needle exchange services provided a 7.45-fold increase in detecting positive individuals and an incremental cost of £12,336 per QALY gained against current practice (NMB £163,827), making this the most cost-effective strategy over a lifetime horizon. Screening at substance misuse services and pharmacies was cost-effective only at a £30,000/QALY threshold. With a 24% discount to HCV treatment list prices, all three screening strategies become cost-effective at £20,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting PWID populations with screening at needle exchange services is a highly cost-effective strategy for reaching undiagnosed HCV patients. When applying realistic discounts to list prices of drug treatments, all three strategies were highly cost-effective from a UK NHS perspective. All of these strategies have the potential to make a cost-effective contribution to the eradication of HCV by 2030.

Accelerated, Dose escalated, Sequential Chemoradiotherapy in Non-small-cell lung cancer (ADSCaN): a protocol for a randomised phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer mortality in the UK, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. Most patients present with inoperable disease; therefore, radiotherapy plays a major role in treatment. However, the majority of patients are not suitable for the gold standard treatment (concurrent chemoradiotherapy) due to performance status and comorbidities. Novel strategies integrating radiotherapy advances and radiobiological knowledge need to be evaluated in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Four separate dose escalation accelerated radiotherapy schedules have been completed in UK (CHART-ED, IDEAL-CRT, I-START and Isotoxic IMRT). This study will compare these schedules with a UK standard sequential chemoradiotherapy schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. As it would be impossible to test all schedules in a phase III study, the aim is to use a combined randomised phase II screening/'pick the winner' approach to identify the best schedule to take into a randomised phase III study against conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Suitable patients will have histologically/cytologically confirmed, stage III NSCLC and are able to undergo chemoradiotherapy treatment. The study will recruit 360 patients; 120 on the standard arm and 60 on each experimental arm. Patients will complete 2-4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy before being randomised to one of the radiotherapy schedules. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, with overall survival, time to local-regional failure, toxicity and cost-effectiveness as secondary objectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval (research ethics committee (REC) reference: 16/WS/0165) from the West of Scotland REC 1. The trial is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47674500.

3 versus 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination therapy for colorectal cancer (SCOT): an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: 6 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is usually given as adjuvant treatment for stage 3 colorectal cancer. We investigated whether 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy would be non-inferior to the usual 6 months of treatment. METHODS: The SCOT study was an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 244 centres. Patients aged 18 years or older with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer underwent central randomisation with minimisation for centre, choice of regimen, sex, disease site, N stage, T stage, and the starting dose of capecitabine. Patients were assigned (1:1) to receive 3 months or 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy. The chemotherapy regimens could consist of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX (bolus and infused fluorouracil with oxaliplatin). The regimen was selected before randomisation in accordance with choices of the patient and treating physician. The primary study endpoint was disease-free survival and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1·13. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who started study treatment. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN59757862, and follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: 6088 patients underwent randomisation between March 27, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013. The intended treatment was FOLFOX in 1981 patients and CAPOX in 4107 patients. 3044 patients were assigned to 3 month group and 3044 were assigned to 6 month group. Nine patients in the 3 month group and 14 patients in the 6 month group did not consent for their data to be used, leaving 3035 patients in the 3 month group and 3030 patients in the 6 month group for the intention-to-treat analyses. At the cutoff date for analysis, there had been 1482 disease-free survival events, with 740 in the 3 month group and 742 in the 6 month group. 3 year disease-free survival was 76·7% (95% CI 75·1-78·2) for the 3 month group and 77·1% (75·6-78·6) for the 6 month group, giving a hazard ratio of 1·006 (0·909-1·114, test for non-inferiority p=0·012), significantly below the non-inferiority margin. Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or worse was more common in the 6 month group (237 [58%] of 409 patients for the subset with safety data) than in the 3 month group (103 [25%] of 420) and was long-lasting and associated with worse quality of life. 1098 serious adverse events were reported (492 reports in the 3 month group and 606 reports in the 6 month group) and 32 treatment-related deaths occurred (16 in each group). INTERPRETATION: In the whole study population, 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy was non-inferior to 6 months of the same therapy for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer and was associated with reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. Despite the fact the study was underpowered, these data suggest that a shorter duration leads to similar survival outcomes with better quality of life and thus might represent a new standard of care. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, NETSCC, and Cancer Research UK.

Effect of offering different levels of support and free nicotine replacement therapy via an English national telephone quitline: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of free nicotine replacement therapy or proactive telephone counselling in addition to standard smoking cessation support offered through a telephone quitline. DESIGN: Parallel group, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: National quitline, England. PARTICIPANTS: 2591 non-pregnant smokers aged 16 or more residing in England who called the quitline between February 2009 and February 2010 and agreed to set a quit date: 648 were each randomised to standard support, proactive support, or proactive support with nicotine replacement therapy, and 647 were randomised to standard support with nicotine replacement therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Two interventions were offered in addition to standard support: six weeks' nicotine replacement therapy, provided free, and proactive counselling sessions (repeat telephone calls from, and interaction with, cessation advisors). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self reported smoking cessation for six or more months after the quit date. The secondary outcome was cessation validated by exhaled carbon monoxide measured at six or more months. RESULTS: At six months, 17.7% (n = 229) of those offered nicotine replacement therapy reported smoking cessation compared with 20.1% (n = 261) not offered such therapy (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.04), and 18.2% (n = 236) offered proactive counselling reported smoking cessation compared with 19.6% (n = 254) offered standard support (0.91, 0.75 to 1.11). Data validated by carbon monoxide readings changed the findings for nicotine replacement therapy only, with smoking cessation validated in 6.6% (85/1295) of those offered nicotine replacement therapy compared with 9.4% (122/1296) not offered such therapy (0.67, 0.50 to 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Offering free nicotine replacement therapy or additional (proactive) counselling to standard helpline support had no additional effect on smoking cessation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00775944.