Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs. OBJECTIVE: To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas. DESIGN: Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868). SETTING: Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection. INTERVENTION: The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs. RESULTS: In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]). LIMITATION: Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system. CONCLUSION: Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: French Ministry of Health.

Pectoral I Block Does Not Improve Postoperative Analgesia After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Dual-Centered Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: General anesthesia for breast surgery may be supplemented by using a regional anesthetic technique. We evaluated the efficacy of the first pectoral nerve block (Pecs I) in treating postoperative pain after breast cancer surgery. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, dual-centered, placebo-controlled trial was performed. One hundred twenty-eight patients scheduled for unilateral breast cancer surgery were recruited. A multimodal analgesic regimen and surgeon-administered local anesthetic infiltration were used for all patients. Ultrasound-guided Pecs I was performed using bupivacaine or saline. The primary outcome was the patient pain score (numerical rating scale [NRS]) in the recovery unit 30 minutes after admission or just before the morphine administration (NRS ≥4/10). The secondary outcomes were postoperative opioid consumption (ie, in the recovery unit and after 24 hours). RESULTS: During recovery, no significant difference in NRS was observed between the bupivacaine (n = 62, 3.0 [1.0-4.0]) and placebo (n = 65, 3.0 [1.0-5.0]) groups (P = 0.55). However, the NRS was statistically significantly different, although not clinically significant, for patients undergoing major surgeries (mastectomies or tumorectomies with axillary clearance) (n = 29, 3.0 [0.0-4.0] vs 4.0 [2.0-5.0], P = 0.04). Morphine consumption during recovery did not differ (1.5 mg [0.0-6.0 mg] vs 3.0 mg [0.0-6.0 mg], P = 0.20), except in the major surgery subgroup (1.5 mg [0.0-6.0 mg] vs 6.0 mg [0.0-12.0 mg], P = 0.016). Intraoperative sufentanil and cumulative morphine consumption up to 24 hours did not differ between the 2 groups. Three patients experienced complications related to the Pecs I. CONCLUSIONS: Pecs I is not better than a saline placebo in the presence of multimodal analgesia for breast cancer surgery. However, its role in extended (major) breast surgery may warrant further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01670448.

The reporting of harms in publications on randomized controlled trials funded by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique," a French academic funding scheme.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Accurate information on harms arising from medical interventions is essential for assessing benefit-risk ratios. Since 2004, there has been an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for reporting harms data in publications on randomized clinical trials. The objective of our study was to assess the quality of this reporting from academic randomized clinical trials on drugs. METHODS: We searched for articles on randomized clinical trials funded between 2004 and 2008 by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique." We included all published randomized clinical trials that assessed drugs. Harm-related data were extracted and compared with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension, and the space in the articles devoted to harms data was measured. RESULTS: In total, 37 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. The median harm score was 9/18. In 73.0% of the randomized clinical trials, the reporting of adverse events was selective. Less than 50% of articles provided information on reasons for drug discontinuation that were related to adverse events. The score and the space allocated to harms were higher in antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs randomized clinical trials, while the median proportion of the space in the results section allocated to harms was 16.8%. In 67.6% of the articles, the space allocated to the authors' list and affiliations was greater than the space in the results section allocated to descriptions of harms. No significant improvement in the score or the space allocation was observed during the study period. CONCLUSION: Reporting of harms in French academic drug randomized clinical trials is suboptimal; moreover, this shortcoming is a critical barrier to evaluating the benefit-risk ratio of drug randomized clinical trials. Thus, the authors should be encouraged to adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension.

Detection of drug safety signals from clinical trials data: Role of SUSARs.

One of the main goals of safety management in clinical trials is to detect suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions (SUSARs). The unexpectedness concerns the nature, frequency or severity of an adverse reaction. Drug safety signals could thus be retrieved, and a study was performed to investigate whether SUSARs allow signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Data from six academic safety units were collected from 2005 to 2016. Characteristics of SUSARs were analysed and signals were identified i) by evaluating the presence of other causes, ii) by assessing the summary of product characteristics (SPC), iii) by searching for specific safety information in Pubmed and health agencies, and iv) by investigating the narrative of each case. Pharmacological plausibility was evaluated by compatible mechanism of reaction and time-to-onset. During the study period, 211 SUSARs were collected. They mostly concerned general disorders (26.1%) and protein kinase inhibitors (24.6%). After eliminating SUSARs with other causes or those considered as expected, 50 SUSARs (23.7%), involving a total of 115 drug-reaction pairs, concerned potential safety signals. Among these pairs, 12 (10.4%) were considered as pharmacologically plausible. This study indicates that one quarter of SUSARs collected in academic clinical trials refers to potential safety signals, especially for oncologic drugs. One tenth of drug-reaction pairs was considered to have a pharmacological plausibility and could merit further evaluation. This is the first study suggesting that SUSARs could be a source of safety signals and that their routine analysis should be complementary to spontaneous reporting.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw induced by clodronate, an alkylbiphosphonate: case report and literature review.

PURPOSE: To report on a case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in a patient treated with clodronate, an alkylbiphosphonate, and to draw attention to the risk of ONJ following treatment with all biphosphonates, whether they are alkyl- or amino-biphosphonates. CASE REPORT: Beginning at age 58 years, a female patient took clodronate for almost 13 years for a metastatic bone cancer. She also underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Three months after the end of biphosphonate therapy, she suffered from toothache, and tooth 27 (left maxillary second molar) was extracted. A maxillary focus of osteitis with an oral sinus communication was discovered, and a maxillofacial denture prosthesis was grafted in September 2006. Some days later, the patient consulted her dentist for an ulceration of the oral cavity floor in front of tooth 33 (left mandibular canine) extending to the left inferior side of the lip. In October 2006, teeth 33 and 34 (left mandibular first premolar) were extracted. No secondary infection occurred. A complete healing was only observed 3 months after the last extraction. ONJ due to alkylbiphosphonate treatment was diagnosed as bone reconstruction and mucous cicatrisation were delayed. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out to identify all cases of alkylbiphosphonate-induced ONJ by searching the Medline and Cochrane databases using 'osteonecrosis of the jaw', 'jaw diseases', 'osteonecrosis', 'diphosphonate', 'biphosphonate' (amino-, alkyl- or the international nonproprietary name) as the main search items. The search was limited to English- and French-language articles published between 1966 and February 2010. RESULTS: Our search identified 27 cases of alkylbiphosphonate-induced ONJ in the literature. Among these cases, only ten patients were on alkylbiphosphonate monotherapy; in the other cases, aminobiphosphonates had also been used. The clinical presentation of the alkylbiphosphonate-induced ONJ was similar to that most often encountered with aminobiphosphonate treatment. The duration of exposure before onset was higher with alkylbiphosphonates than with aminobiphosphonates, and dental procedures before ONJ were frequent. CONCLUSION: Osteonecrosis of the jaw has been widely reported with various aminobiphosphonates, but data on the role of alkylbiphosphonates are scarce. As these latter drugs are less potent, a high cumulative dose through long-term exposure would appear to be necessary and would favour ONJ. Although the degree of risk for ONJ occurrence in patients on alkylbiphosphonates remains uncertain, it would be wise to reconsider carefully the indications for using these agents and to apply preventive measures as is currently done for aminobiphosphonates.