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.

What are important outcomes of bariatric surgery? An in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set and a comparison between the views of surgeons and other health professionals (the BARIACT study).

BACKGROUND: Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs uniformity. A core outcome set is an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition, but members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team might value outcomes differently. The aim of this study was to summarise existing outcome reporting in bariatric surgery, to inform the development of a core outcome set, and to compare outcomes selected as important by type of health professional. METHODS: Outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomised studies, identified by a systematic review, were listed verbatim. Frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definition were assessed. A questionnaire to rate the importance of each outcome was completed by members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team. Responses to each item were scored as 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). We ranked outcomes according to percentage deemed important (7-9) and according to respondents by type of health professional. FINDINGS: We identified 1088 individual outcomes from 90 studies (39 RCTs), grouped them into health domains, and presented them as a questionnaire with 131 items to 489 multidisciplinary team members. Most outcomes (n=920, 85%) were reported only once. The largest outcome domain was surgical complications, and 432 outcomes (42%) corresponded to an adverse event. Only a quarter of outcomes (n=461) were defined, and were often contradictory. For questionnaire responders (n=164, response rate 33·5%), most were surgeons (n=80, 48·8%), followed by dietitians (n=31, 18·9%), nurses (n=24, 14·6%), physicians (n=12, 7·3%), and others (n=16, 9·9%). Improvement in diabetes was the top outcome for all health professionals. Seven of the surgeon's top ten outcomes were adverse events, compared with three for other health professionals. Groups valued a measure of weight differently (third vs 15th for other health professionals and surgeons, respectively). INTERPRETATION: This study shows that the assessment of bariatric surgery focuses largely on adverse events and resolution of comorbidity, but that reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined. Substantial variation between the views of surgeons and those of other health professionals was evident. The next step is to provide feedback to participants and to survey their views again before a final consensus meeting to produce a core outcome set for the Benefits and Adverse events in BARIAtric surgery Clinical Trials (BARIACT) as a solution to this problem. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme. This work was also undertaken with the support of the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub (Collaboration and innovation for Difficult and Complex randomised controlled Trials In Invasive procedures, MR/K025643/1).

Erratum: Development, appraisal, validation and implementation of a consensus protocol for the assessment of cerebral amyloid angiopathy in post-mortem brain tissue.

In a collaboration involving 11 groups with research interests in cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), we used a two-stage process to develop and in turn validate a new consensus protocol and scoring scheme for the assessment of CAA and associated vasculopathic abnormalities in post-mortem brain tissue. Stage one used an iterative Delphi-style survey to develop the consensus protocol. The resultant scoring scheme was tested on a series of digital images and paraffin sections that were circulated blind to a number of scorers. The scoring scheme and choice of staining methods were refined by open-forum discussion. The agreed protocol scored parenchymal and meningeal CAA on a 0-3 scale, capillary CAA as present/absent and vasculopathy on 0-2 scale, in the 4 cortical lobes that were scored separately. A further assessment involving three centres was then undertaken. Neuropathologists in three centres (Bristol, Oxford and Sheffield) independently scored sections from 75 cases (25 from each centre) and high inter-rater reliability was demonstrated. Stage two used the results of the three-centre assessment to validate the protocol by investigating previously described associations between APOE genotype (previously determined), and both CAA and vasculopathy. Association of capillary CAA with or without arteriolar CAA with APOE ε4 was confirmed. However APOE ε2 was also found to be a strong risk factor for the development of CAA, not only in AD but also in elderly non-demented controls. Further validation of this protocol and scoring scheme is encouraged, to aid its wider adoption to facilitate collaborative and replication studies of CAA.[This corrects the article on p. 19 in vol. 3, PMID: 24754000.].

Development, appraisal, validation and implementation of a consensus protocol for the assessment of cerebral amyloid angiopathy in post-mortem brain tissue.

In a collaboration involving 11 groups with research interests in cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), we used a two-stage process to develop and in turn validate a new consensus protocol and scoring scheme for the assessment of CAA and associated vasculopathic abnormalities in post-mortem brain tissue. Stage one used an iterative Delphi-style survey to develop the consensus protocol. The resultant scoring scheme was tested on a series of digital images and paraffin sections that were circulated blind to a number of scorers. The scoring scheme and choice of staining methods were refined by open-forum discussion. The agreed protocol scored parenchymal and meningeal CAA on a 0-3 scale, capillary CAA as present/absent and vasculopathy on 0-2 scale, in the 4 cortical lobes that were scored separately. A further assessment involving three centres was then undertaken. Neuropathologists in three centres (Bristol, Oxford and Sheffield) independently scored sections from 75 cases (25 from each centre) and high inter-rater reliability was demonstrated. Stage two used the results of the three-centre assessment to validate the protocol by investigating previously described associations between APOE genotype (previously determined), and both CAA and vasculopathy. Association of capillary CAA with or without arteriolar CAA with APOE ε4 was confirmed. However APOE ε2 was also found to be a strong risk factor for the development of CAA, not only in AD but also in elderly non-demented controls. Further validation of this protocol and scoring scheme is encouraged, to aid its wider adoption to facilitate collaborative and replication studies of CAA.