Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal resection is the main method of curative treatment for cancer of the oesophagus. Despite advances in surgical technology and postoperative care, the survival rate and prognosis of people undergoing oesophagectomy is still poor. The use of minimally invasive techniques in oesophageal surgery offers hope of reduced recovery time due to a reduction in surgical trauma. Although the first reports of thoracoscopy- and laparoscopy-assisted oesophagectomy emerged some 20 years ago, there is still no consensus that the outcomes are clearly superior to outcomes following conventional open surgery. Increasingly, some surgeons promote the use of minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy but questions remain over its safety and efficacy compared with open surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy to open surgery. The outcomes of interest for efficacy and safety included mortality, operative complications, recurrence, and quality of life. RESULTS: There were 28 included comparative studies. No randomised controlled studies (RCTs) were available and therefore the data need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for future research are discussed. We argue that it is difficult to conduct an RCT for this procedure due to ethical considerations and suggest ways that future nonrandomised studies could be improved.

Quality of life of people with mental health problems: a synthesis of qualitative research.

PURPOSE: To identify the domains of quality of life important to people with mental health problems. METHOD: A systematic review of qualitative research undertaken with people with mental health problems using a framework synthesis. RESULTS: We identified six domains: well-being and ill-being; control, autonomy and choice; self-perception; belonging; activity; and hope and hopelessness. Firstly, symptoms or 'ill-being' were an intrinsic aspect of quality of life for people with severe mental health problems. Additionally, a good quality of life was characterised by the feeling of being in control (particularly of distressing symptoms), autonomy and choice; a positive self-image; a sense of belonging; engagement in meaningful and enjoyable activities; and feelings of hope and optimism. Conversely, a poor quality life, often experienced by those with severe mental health difficulties, was characterized by feelings of distress; lack of control, choice and autonomy; low self-esteem and confidence; a sense of not being part of society; diminished activity; and a sense of hopelessness and demoralization. CONCLUSIONS: Generic measures fail to address the complexity of quality of life measurement and the broad range of domains important to people with mental health problems.

Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews.

The role of critical appraisal of qualitative studies in systematic reviews remains an ongoing cause for debate. Key to such a debate is whether quality assessment can or should be used to exclude studies. In our study, we extended the use of existing criteria to assess the quality of reporting of studies included in two qualitative systematic reviews. We then excluded studies deemed to be inadequately reported from the subsequent analysis. We tested the impact of these exclusions on the overall findings of the synthesis and its depth or thickness. Exclusion of so-called inadequately reported studies had no meaningful effect on the synthesis. There was a correlation between quality of reporting of a study and its values as a source for the final synthesis. We propose that there is a possible case for excluding inadequately reported studies from qualitative evidence synthesis.

Percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is a minimally invasive surgical procedure in which bone cement is injected into a fractured vertebra. Percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) is a variation of this approach, in which an inflatable balloon tamp is placed in the collapsed vertebra prior to cement injection. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate and appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PVP and percutaneous BKP in reducing pain and disability in people with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) in England and Wales. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was carried out. Ten databases including MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 2011, and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles and contact with an expert. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with painful osteoporotic VCFs with a group receiving PVP or BKP. In addition, lead authors of identified RCTs were contacted for unpublished data. REVIEW METHODS: Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life; back-specific functional status/mobility; pain/analgesic use; vertebral body height and angular deformity; incidence of new vertebral fractures and progression of treated fracture. A manufacturer provided academic-in-confidence observational data indicating that vertebral augmentation may be associated with a beneficial mortality effect, and that, potentially, BKP was more efficacious than PVP. These data were formally critiqued. A mathematical model was constructed to explore the cost-effectiveness of BKP, PVP and operative placebo with local anaesthesia (OPLA) compared with optimal pain management (OPM). Six scenario analyses were conducted that assessed combinations of assumptions on mortality (differential beneficial effects for BKP and PVP; equal beneficial effects for BKP and PVP; and no effect assumed) and derivation of utility data (either mapped from visual analogue scale pain score data produced by a network meta-analysis or using direct European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions data from the trials). Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted on each of the six scenarios. This report contains reference to confidential information provided as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal process. This information has been removed from the report and the results, discussions and conclusions of the report do not include the confidential information. These sections are clearly marked in the report. RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs were identified and included in the review of clinical effectiveness. This body of literature was of variable quality, with the two double-blind, OPLA-controlled trials being at the least risk of bias. The most significant methodological issue among the remaining trials was lack of blinding for both study participants and outcome assessors. Broadly speaking, the literature suggests that both PVP and BKP provide substantially greater benefits than OPM in open-label trials. However, in double-blinded trials PVP was shown to have no more benefit than local anaesthetic; no trials of BKP compared with local anaesthesia have been conducted. A formal analysis of observational mortality data undertaken within this report concluded that it was not possible to say with certainty if there is a difference in mortality between patients undergoing BKP and PVP compared with OPM. Results from the cost-effectiveness analyses were varied, with all of BKP, PVP and OPLA appearing the most cost-effective treatment dependent on the assumptions made regarding mortality effects, utility, hospitalisation costs and OPLA costs. LIMITATIONS: Data on key parameters were uncertain and/or potentially confounded, making definitive conclusions difficult to make. CONCLUSION: For people with painful osteoporotic VCFs refractory to analgesic treatment, PVP and BKP perform significantly better in unblinded trials than OPM in terms of improving quality of life and reducing pain and disability. However, there is as yet no convincing evidence that either procedure performs better than OPLA. The uncertainty in the evidence base means that no definitive conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of PVP or BKP can be provided. Further research should focus on establishing whether or not BKP and PVP have a mortality advantage compared with OPLA and on whether or not these provide any utility gain compared with OPLA. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered as PROSPERO number CRD42011001822. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of cabazitaxel (Jevtana®, sanofi-aventis, UK) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence was derived from a multinational randomized open-label phase III trial of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone in men with mHRPC that had progressed during or following treatment with docetaxel. The comparator was mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone. Use of cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, median progression-free survival and time to tumour progression. However, it was also associated with an increased incidence of adverse events such as neutropenia. Utility data were based on interim results from the early access programme for cabazitaxel. Data were only available for a small number of patients with stable disease, resulting in great uncertainty as to the effect of cabazitaxel on quality of life. For their economic evaluation, the manufacturer estimated that the use of cabazitaxel was associated with an incremental cost of £74,908 per QALY gained. However, the ERG disagreed with the manufacturer over two key methodological points. The first concerned modelling and extrapolating survival; the second point was concerned with the choice of patient population. The ERG altered the manufacturer's evaluation to take into account these two points of disagreement. The resulting cost per QALY gained was £82,950. The NICE Appraisal Committee believed the analysis presented by the ERG to be more plausible, and likely to be an underestimate of the cost per QALY. They concluded that whilst the clinical effectiveness of cabazitaxel had been proven, it was not likely to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources and so its use could not be recommended.

Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in women who are Rh(D) negative: meta-analyses adjusted for differences in study design and quality.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the effectiveness of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for preventing sensitisation in pregnant Rhesus negative women, and to explore whether this depends on the treatment regimen adopted. METHODS: Ten studies identified in a previous systematic literature search were included. Potential sources of bias were systematically identified using bias checklists, and their impact and uncertainty were quantified using expert opinion. Study results were adjusted for biases and combined, first in a random-effects meta-analysis and then in a random-effects meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: In a conventional meta-analysis, the pooled odds ratio for sensitisation was estimated as 0.25 (95% CI 0.18, 0.36), comparing routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis to control, with some heterogeneity (I²â€Š =  19%). However, this naïve analysis ignores substantial differences in study quality and design. After adjusting for these, the pooled odds ratio for sensitisation was estimated as 0.31 (95% CI 0.17, 0.56), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I²  =  0%). A meta-regression analysis was performed, which used the data available from the ten anti-D prophylaxis studies to inform us about the relative effectiveness of three licensed treatments. This gave an 83% probability that a dose of 1250 IU at 28 and 34 weeks is most effective and a 76% probability that a single dose of 1500 IU at 28-30 weeks is least effective. CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for prevention of sensitisation, in support of the policy of offering routine prophylaxis to all non-sensitised pregnant Rhesus negative women. All three licensed dose regimens are expected to be effective.

Survival benefits from follow-up of patients with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The burden of lung cancer is high for patients and carers. Care after treatment may have the potential to impact on this. We reviewed the published literature on follow-up strategies intended to improve survival and quality of life. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies comparing follow-up regimes in lung cancer. Primary outcomes were overall survival (comparing more intensive versus less intensive follow-up) and survival comparing symptomatic with asymptomatic recurrence. Quality of life was identified as a secondary outcome measure. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals from eligible studies were synthesized. RESULTS: Nine studies that examined the role of more intensive follow-up for patients with lung cancer were included (eight observational studies and one randomized controlled trial). The studies of curative resection included patients with non-small cell lung cancer Stages I to III disease, and studies of palliative treatment follow-up included limited and extensive stage patients with small cell lung cancer. A total of 1669 patients were included in the studies. Follow-up programs were heterogeneous and multifaceted. A nonsignificant trend for intensive follow-up to improve survival was identified, for the curative intent treatment subgroup (HR: 0.83; 95% confidence interval: 0.66-1.05). Asymptomatic recurrence was associated with increased survival, which was statistically significant HR: 0.61 (0.50-0.74) (p < 0.01); quality of life was only assessed in one study. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis must be interpreted with caution due to the potential for bias in the included studies: observed benefit may be due to systematic differences in outcomes rather than intervention effects. Some benefit was noted from intensive follow-up strategies. More robust data, in the form of randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings as the review is based primarily on observational studies. Future research should also include patient-centered outcomes to investigate the impact of follow-up regimes on living with lung cancer and psychosocial well-being.

Update on the use of osteoarthritis-specific outcome measures.

Osteoarthritis is the single most important cause of disability and limitation of activity of elderly people in the UK. Although joint replacement is now commonplace for hips and increasingly so for knees, pharmacological management continues to be important. In this context, it is necessary to identify valid and acceptable outcome measures to enable progress in treating osteoarthritis to be evaluated. Such measures should benefit not only clinicians managing osteoarthritis and purchasers of healthcare for this condition, but, ultimately also patients through improved forms of treatment. This paper briefly reviews and provides an update on the use of osteoarthritis-specific health and functional status and generic health status outcome measures in health services research and technology assessment. Other equally important clinical outcome measures, such as biochemical markers, radiographic assessment and joint imaging, are not discussed.

The economics of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant women who are rhesus negative.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the economics of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in the prevention of haemolytic disease of the newborn, in support of the NICE appraisals process. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: UK NHS. POPULATION/SAMPLE: Pregnant women who are RhD-negative. METHODS: A model was constructed to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness and cost utility of: (1) offering routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis to all pregnant women who are RhD-negative; (2) offering routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis to RhD-negative primigravidae, compared with conventional management alone. Effectiveness estimates were derived from a meta-analysis of two UK community-based studies. Costs were derived from published sources and NHS product lists. Threshold analysis was conducted to reflect the social value of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis through incorporating valuations of parental grief and fetal/neonatal loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per life year gained and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The cost per life year gained is in the range pound 5,000- pound 15,000. The inclusion of long term neurodevelopmental problems results in a cost utility ranging between pound 11,000 and pound 52,000 per QALY gained. Threshold analysis suggests that if fetal loss, parental grief and subsequent high intervention pregnancy are valued at greater than 9 QALYs, the comprehensive policy would be more attractive than the primigravidae policy, assuming a maximum acceptable threshold of pound 30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis provides a cost effective intervention for preventing haemolytic disease of the newborn in the pregnancies of women who are RhD-negative.