Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in the conservative treatment of upper gastrointestinal fistula after surgery: a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase III study (NUTRILEAK study).

BACKGROUND: Postoperative upper gastrointestinal fistula (PUGIF) is a devastating complication, leading to high mortality (reaching up to 80%), increased length of hospital stay, reduced health-related quality of life and increased health costs. Nutritional support is a key component of therapy in such cases, which is related to the high prevalence of malnutrition. In the prophylactic setting, enteral nutrition (EN) is associated with a shorter hospital stay, a lower incidence of severe infectious complications, lower severity of complications and decreased cost compared to total parenteral nutrition (TPN) following major upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. There is little evidence available for the curative setting after fistula occurrence. We hypothesize that EN increases the 30-day fistula closure rate in PUGIF, allowing better health-related quality of life without increasing the morbidity or mortality. METHODS/DESIGN: The NUTRILEAK trial is a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label phase III trial to assess the efficacy of EN (the experimental group) compared with TPN (the control group) in patients with PUGIF. The primary objective of the study is to compare EN versus TPN in the treatment of PUGIF (after esophagogastric resection including bariatric surgery, duodenojejunal resection or pancreatic resection with digestive tract violation) in terms of the 30-day fistula closure rate. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the 6-month postrandomization fistula closure rate, time of first fistula closure (in days), the medical- and surgical treatment-related complication rate at 6 months after randomization, the fistula-related complication rate at 6 months after randomization, the type and severity of early (30 days after randomization) and late fistula-related complications (over 30 days after randomization), 30-day and 6-month postrandomization mortality rate, nutritional status at day 30, day 60, day 90 and day 180 postrandomization, the mean length of hospital stay, the patient's health-related quality of life (by self-assessment questionnaire), oral feeding time and direct costs of treatment. A total of 321 patients will be enrolled. DISCUSSION: The two nutritional supports are already used in daily practice, but most surgeons are reluctant to use the enteral route in case of PUGIF. This study will be the first randomized trial testing the role of EN versus TPN in PUGIF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03742752. Registered on 14 November 2018.

Feasibility of preoperative and postoperative chemoradiotherapy in gastric adenocarcinoma. Two phase II studies done in parallel. Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive 0308.

BACKGROUND: For resectable gastric cancer, both postoperative chemoradiotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy demonstrate high-level evidence for improved survival in Western populations. To evaluate the feasibility of pre- or postoperative chemoradiotherapy, we proposed two multicentre phase II studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with localised, histologically confirmed gastric cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status <2 judged suitable for curative resection were eligible. Eligible patients were assigned to either preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection or surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy depending on each centre. Chemoradiotherapy regimen included four courses of FOLFIRI (5 Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Irinotecan) regimen then Concurrent fluorouracil at 200 mg/m2/d by continuous infusion 5 days each week. A dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions in the preoperative study, or 45 Gy in 25 fractions in the postoperative study, was delivered. The primary end-point for both studies was the proportion of patients, who completed the therapeutic sequence. RESULTS: Between September 2007 and January 2010, 63 patients were included in both studies. The postoperative study was stopped for futility at the first step. In the preoperative study, 31 patients (73.8%, confidence interval (CI) 95%: 65.8-90.1%) received complete therapeutic sequence. Serum albumin and dietary restriction evaluated by QLQ-STO22 (Quality of Life-Stomach module) score were significantly linked with chemoradiotherapy feasibility in univariate analysis with respectively Odds-ratio (OR) 1.16 [CI 95%: 1.01-1.33] and 0.17 [0.03-0.89], p=0.04. Median overall survival time was 26.4 months in the preoperative study. CONCLUSION: Feasibility of chemoradiotherapy was not achieved for these studies: 73.8% (CI 95%: 65.8-90.1) and 42.9% (CI 95%: 21.8-66%) in preoperative and postoperative settings respectively.

Rectal cancer surgery with or without bowel preparation: The French GRECCAR III multicenter single-blinded randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess with a single-blinded, multicenter, randomized trial, the postoperative results in patients undergoing sphincter-saving rectal resection for cancer without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP). BACKGROUND: The collective evidence from literature strongly suggests that MBP, before elective colonic surgery, is of no benefit in terms of postoperative morbidity. Very few data and no randomized study are available for rectal surgery and preliminary results conclude toward the safety of rectal resection without MBP. METHODS: From October 2007 to January 2009, patients scheduled for elective rectal cancer sphincter-saving resection were randomized to receive preoperative MBP (ie, retrograde enema and oral laxatives) or not. Primary endpoint was the overall 30-day morbidity rate. Secondary endpoints included mortality rate, anastomotic leakage rate, major morbidity rate (Dindo III or more), degree of discomfort for the patient, and hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients (103 men), including 89 in both groups (no-MBP and MBP groups), were included in the study. The overall and infectious morbidity rates were significantly higher in no-MBP versus MBP group, 44% versus 27%, P = 0.018, and 34% versus 16%, P = 0.005, respectively. Regarding both anastomotic leakage and major morbidity rates, there was no significant difference between no-MBP and MBP group: 19% versus 10% (P = 0.09) and 18% versus 11% (P = 0.69), respectively. Moderate or severe discomfort was reported by 40% of prepared patients. Mortality rate (1.1% vs 3.4%) and mean hospital stay (16 vs 14 days) did not differ significantly between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This first randomized trial demonstrated that rectal cancer surgery without MBP was associated with higher risk of overall and infectious morbidity rates without any significant increase of anastomotic leakage rate. Thus, it suggests continuing to perform MBP before elective rectal resection for cancer.