Recruiting to surgical trials in the emergency setting: using a mixed methods study to understand clinician and patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Undertaking randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in emergency surgical settings is associated with methodological and practical challenges. This study explored patients' and clinicians' perspectives associated with the conduct of an RCT comparing laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in the acute setting. METHODS: All eligible patients screened and enrolled for the 'Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting (LaCeS)' multicentre, randomized clinical feasibility trial in five UK NHS Trusts were invited to respond to a survey. Patients and healthcare professionals were also invited to take part in semi-structured interviews. Survey and interviews explored the acceptability of the feasibility trial. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Survey data were analysed descriptively to assess patient views of the trial and intervention. RESULTS: Out of 72 patients enrolled for the LaCeS RCT, survey data were collected from 28 patients (38.9 per cent), and interviews were conducted with 16 patients and 14 healthcare professionals. Thirteen out of 28 patients (46 per cent) had treatment preferences but these were not strong enough to deter participation. Twelve of the patients interviewed believed that their surgeon preferred laparoscopic surgery, but this did not deter them from participating in the trial. Half of the surgeons interviewed expressed the view that laparoscopic surgery was of benefit in this setting, but recognized that the need for research evidence outweighed their personal treatment preferences. Eight of the 14 recruiters reported that the emergency setting affected recruitment, especially in centres with fewer recruiting surgeons. Interviewees reported that recruitment was helped significantly by using surgical trainees to consent patients. CONCLUSION: This study identified specific challenges for the LaCeS trial design to address and adds significant insights to our understanding of recruiting to emergency surgical trials more broadly.

An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: There is growing enthusiasm for robotic-assisted laparoscopic operations across many surgical specialities, including colorectal surgery, often not supported by robust clinical or cost-effectiveness data. A proper assessment of this new technology is required, prior to widespread recommendation or implementation. METHODS/DESIGN: The ROLARR trial is a pan-world, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, superiority trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. It will investigate differences in terms of the rate of conversion to open operation, rate of pathological involvement of circumferential resection margin, 3-year local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival rates and also operative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome measure is the rate of conversion to open operation. For 80% power at the 5% (two-sided) significance level, to identify a relative 50% reduction in open conversion rate (25% to 12.5%), 336 patients will be required. The target recruitment is 400 patients overall to allow loss to follow-up. Patients will be followed up at 30 days and 6 months post-operatively and then annually until 3 years after the last patient has been randomised. DISCUSSION: In many centres, robotic-assisted surgery is being implemented on the basis of theoretical advantages, which have yet to be confirmed in practice. Robotic surgery is an expensive health care provision and merits robust evaluation. The ROLARR trial is a pragmatic trial aiming to provide a comprehensive evaluation of both robotic-assisted and standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative resection of rectal cancer.

Severe sequence-specific toxicity when capecitabine is given after Fluorouracil and leucovorin.

PURPOSE: Options for single-agent fluoropyrimidine adjuvant therapy after bowel cancer resection include intravenous fluorouracil with leucovorin (FU/LV) or oral capecitabine. These treatments have similar efficacy but differ in convenience and toxicity. We therefore wished to compare their overall acceptability to patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled for adjuvant single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly FU/LV (425 mg/m(2) FU, 45 mg LV) for 6 weeks, followed by two 3-week cycles of capecitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1 through 14), or the same treatments but in reverse order. After 12 weeks, the patients were asked which treatment they preferred, and received the preferred treatment for an additional 12 weeks. The primary end point was patient preference. RESULTS: After 40 of the planned 74 patients had been randomly assigned, real-time adverse event monitoring led to early trial closure because of excess sequence-specific toxicity. Eleven of 14 patients (79%) receiving capecitabine as their second treatment experienced grade >/= 3 toxicity. This compared with five of 18 patients (28%) receiving capecitabine as the first treatment, and no patients receiving FU/LV as the first treatment (zero of 16) or the second treatment (zero of 12). Similar imbalances were seen in the proportion of patients requiring interruption of treatment. CONCLUSION: In chemotherapy-naïve patients, capecitabine produced more toxicity than FU/LV, but at levels in line with previously reported data. However, treatment with capecitabine after FU/LV caused markedly increased toxicity, indicating a sequence-specific interaction. The mechanism has not been determined, but interaction with intracellularly retained folate after FU/LV therapy is a possibility. Oncologists need to be aware of this risk if considering crossing patients over from FU/LV to capecitabine-based regimens.