Use of bioresorbable membranes to reduce abdominal and perihepatic adhesions in 2-stage hepatectomy of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: results of a prospective, randomized controlled phase II trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess by prospective randomized controlled trial the feasibility and efficacy of using a bioresorbable hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose membrane (HA membrane) to prevent abdominal and perihepatic adhesions in metastatic colorectal cancer patients requiring 2-stage hepatectomy. BACKGROUND: Two-stage hepatectomy offers the possibility of long-term survival to selected patients whose liver metastases cannot be removed in a single procedure. However, the second operation is made more difficult by adhesions arising from the first. HA membrane reduces adhesions in gynecologic and abdominal surgery but this is the first trial in hepatectomy. METHODS: Fifty-four candidates for 2-stage hepatectomy were randomized at the end of the first procedure to implantation of HA membrane (n = 41) or standard management (n = 13). Thirty patients from the membrane arm and 11 well-matched controls underwent the planned second hepatectomy. RESULTS: Positioning of the HA membranes was feasible in all but one patient and did not increase complications associated with the first hepatectomy. At second hepatectomy, patients in the HA membrane arm required 33% less time than controls to achieve complete liver mobilization (median: 50 vs 75 minutes; primary endpoint). The risk of extensive adhesions was reduced in the HA membrane group (31% had grade 3-4 adhesions vs 55% in controls), as was adhesion severity (17% thick and hypervascular adhesions vs 46%). The proportion of patients with complications at second hepatectomy was higher in the control group (55% vs 23% in the HA membrane group, P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Use of 4 HA membranes at the end of first hepatectomy reduced the extent and severity of adhesions and facilitated the second hepatectomy in patients with liver metastases who required a 2-stage hepatectomy. A larger study to confirm these findings is warranted. (NCT01262417).

Cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma: an economic evaluation of the PALM Trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) filgrastim accelerates neutrophil recovery following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Since filgrastim requires multiple daily administrations, forms of rhG-CSF with a longer half life, including pegfilgrastim, have been developed. Pegfilgrastim is safe and effective in supporting neutrophil recovery and reducing febrile neutropenia after conventional chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim has also been successfully used to support patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation for haematological malignancies. To our knowledge, no cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of pegfilgrastim in this setting has been published yet. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a CEA to compare a single injection of pegfilgrastim versus repeated administrations of filgrastim in patients who had undergone PBSC transplantation for lymphoma or myeloma. The CEA was set in France and covered a period of 100 ± 10 days from transplant. METHODS: The CEA was designed as part of an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase II trial. Costs were assessed from the hospital's point of view and are expressed in 2009 euros. Costs computation focused on inpatient, outpatient, and home care. Costs in the two arms of the study were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. When differences were statistically significant, multiple regression analyses were performed in order to identify cost drivers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for the major endpoints of the trial; i.e., duration of febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <0.5 × 10(9)/L and temperature ≥38 °C), duration of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L and ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), duration of thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L and <20 × 10(9)/L), and days with a temperature ≥38 °C). Uncertainty around the ICER was captured by a probabilistic analysis using a non-parametric bootstrap method. RESULTS: 151 patients were enrolled at ten French centres from October 2008 to September 2009. The mean total cost in the pegfilgrastim arm of the study (n = 74) was 25,024 (SD 9,945). That in the filgrastim arm (n = 76) was 28,700 (SD 20,597). Pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim for days of febrile neutropenia avoided, days of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L) avoided, days of thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L) avoided, and days with temperature ≥38 °C) avoided. Pegfilgrastim was less costly and less effective than filgrastim for the number of days with ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L avoided and the number of days with platelets <50.0 × 10(9)/L avoided. Taking uncertainty into account, the probabilities that pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim were 67 % for febrile neutropenia, 86 % for neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L), 59 % for thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L), 86 % for temperature ≥38 °C, 32 % for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), and 43 % for thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L). Conversely, the probability that filgrastim strictly dominated pegfilgrastim for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L) is 5 %. CONCLUSION: This study found no evidence that the use of pegfilgrastim is associated with greater cost in lymphoma and myeloma patients after high-dose chemotherapy and PBSC transplantation.