Exploring and adjusting for potential learning effects in ROLARR: a randomised controlled trial comparing robotic-assisted vs. standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection.

BACKGROUND: Commonly in surgical randomised controlled trials (RCT) the experimental treatment is a relatively new technique which the surgeons may still be learning, while the control is a well-established standard. This can lead to biased comparisons between treatments. In this paper we discuss the implementation of approaches for addressing this issue in the ROLARR trial, and points of consideration for future surgical trials. METHODS: ROLARR was an international, randomised, parallel-group trial comparing robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was conversion to open surgery (binary). A surgeon inclusion criterion mandating a minimum level of experience in each technique was incorporated. Additionally, surgeon self-reported data were collected periodically throughout the trial to capture the level of experience of every participating surgeon. Multi-level logistic regression adjusting for operating surgeon as a random effect is used to estimate the odds ratio for conversion to open surgery between the treatment groups. We present and contrast the results from the primary analysis, which did not account for learning effects, and a sensitivity analysis which did. RESULTS: The primary analysis yields an estimated odds ratio (robotic/laparoscopic) of 0.614 (95% CI 0.311, 1.211; p = 0.16), providing insufficient evidence to conclude superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic in terms of the risk of conversion to open. The sensitivity analysis reveals that while participating surgeons in ROLARR were expert at laparoscopic surgery, some, if not all, were still learning robotic surgery. The treatment-effect odds ratio decreases by a factor of 0.341 (95% CI 0.121, 0.960; p = 0.042) per unit increase in log-number of previous robotic operations performed by the operating surgeon. The odds ratio for a patient whose operating surgeon has the mean experience level in ROLARR - 152.46 previous laparoscopic, 67.93 previous robotic operations - is 0.40 (95% CI 0.168, 0.953; p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we have demonstrated the implementation of approaches for accounting for learning in a practical example of a surgery RCT analysis. The results demonstrate the value of implementing such approaches, since we have shown that without them the ROLARR analysis would indeed have been confounded by the learning effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, ID: ISRCTN80500123. Registered on 27 May 2010.

Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy. Objective: To compare robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial comparing robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among 471 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection conducted at 29 sites across 10 countries, including 40 surgeons. Recruitment of patients was from January 7, 2011, to September 30, 2014, follow-up was conducted at 30 days and 6 months, and final follow-up was on June 16, 2015. Interventions: Patients were randomized to robotic-assisted (n = 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by either high (upper rectum) or low (total rectum) anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection (rectum and perineum). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was conversion to open laparotomy. Secondary end points included intraoperative and postoperative complications, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+) and other pathological outcomes, quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey and 20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), bladder and sexual dysfunction (International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index), and oncological outcomes. Results: Among 471 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [11.0] years; 320 [67.9%] men), 466 (98.9%) completed the study. The overall rate of conversion to open laparotomy was 10.1%: 19 of 236 patients (8.1%) in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group and 28 of 230 patients (12.2%) in the conventional laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 4.1% [95% CI, -1.4% to 9.6%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.31 to 1.21]; P = .16). The overall CRM+ rate was 5.7%; CRM+ occurred in 14 (6.3%) of 224 patients in the conventional laparoscopic group and 12 (5.1%) of 235 patients in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 1.1% [95% CI, -3.1% to 5.4%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.76]; P = .56). Of the other 8 reported prespecified secondary end points, including intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, plane of surgery, 30-day mortality, bladder dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, as compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy. These findings suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, when performed by surgeons with varying experience with robotic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN80500123.

How optometrists record corneal staining.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine current approaches adopted by optometrists to the recording of corneal staining following fluorescein instillation. METHODS: An anonymous 'record-keeping task' was sent to all 756 practitioners who are members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. This task comprised a form on which appeared a colour photograph depicting contact lens solution-induced corneal staining. Next to the photograph was an empty box, in which practitioners were asked to record their observations. Practitioners were also asked to indicate the level of severity of the condition at which treatment would be instigated. RESULTS: Completed task forms were returned by 228 optometrists, representing a 30 per cent response rate. Ninety-two per cent of respondents offered a diagnosis. The most commonly used descriptive terms were 'superficial punctate keratitis' (36 per cent of respondents) and 'punctate staining' (29 per cent). The level of severity and location of corneal staining were noted by 69 and 68 per cent of respondents, respectively. A numerical grade was assigned by 44 per cent of respondents. Only three per cent nominated the grading scale used. The standard deviation of assigned grades was ± 0.6. The condition was sketched by 35 per cent of respondents and two per cent stated that they would take a photograph of the eye. Ten per cent noted the eye in which the condition was being observed. Opinions of the level of severity at which treatment for corneal staining should be instigated varied considerably between practitioners, ranging from 'any sign of corneal staining' to 'grade 4 staining'. CONCLUSION: Although most practitioners made a sensible note of the condition and properly recorded the location of corneal staining, serious deficiencies were evident regarding other aspects of record-keeping. Ongoing programs of professional optometric education should reinforce good practice in relation to clinical record-keeping.

A survey of the use of grading scales for contact lens complications in optometric practice.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the extent and pattern of use of grading scales for contact lens complications ('grading scales') in optometric practice. METHODS: An anonymous postal survey was sent to all 756 members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. Information was elicited relating to level of experience, practice type and location, and mode of usage of grading scales. RESULTS: Survey forms were returned by 237 optometrists, representing a 31 per cent response rate. The majority of respondents (61 per cent) reported using grading scales frequently in practice, while 65 per cent of these preferred to use the Efron Grading Scales for Contact Lens Complications. Seventy-six per cent of optometrists use a method of incremental grading rather than simply grading with whole numbers. Grading scales are more likely to be used by optometrists who have recently graduated (p < 0.001), have a postgraduate certificate in ocular therapeutics (p = 0.018), see more contact lens patients (p = 0.027) and use other forms of grading scales (p < 0.001). The most frequently graded ocular conditions were corneal staining, papillary conjunctivitis and conjunctival redness. The main reasons for not using grading scales included a preference for sketches, photographs or descriptions (87 per cent) and unavailability of scales (29 per cent). CONCLUSION: Grading scales for contact lens complications are used extensively in optometric practice for a variety of purposes. This tool can now be considered as an expected norm in contact lens practice. We advocate the incorporation of such grading scales into professional guidelines and standards for good optometric clinical practice.

Change in serum lipids after acute coronary syndromes: secondary analysis of SPACE ROCKET study data and a comparative literature review.

BACKGROUND: It has long been an accepted belief that serum cholesterol significantly falls after myocardial infarction and that a return to pre-event levels takes approximately 3 months. The magnitude and clinical significance of this fall has recently been challenged. METHODS: In the Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Events-Reduction Of Cholesterol to Key European Targets (SPACE ROCKET) trial, we measured serum lipids of individuals on day 1 and between days 2 and 4 after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Second, we performed a thorough literature review and compared all studies reporting data on absolute changes in lipids immediately after AMI, using weighted means. RESULTS: Of 1263 SPACE ROCKET participants, 128 had paired lipid measurements where both samples had been measured using identical methods at baseline and on days 2-4 after AMI. The mean lowering in total cholesterol between day 1 and day 2-4 was 0.71 mmol/L (95% CI 0.58-0.84; P < 0.0001) and in triglycerides was 0.10 mmol/L (-0.14-0.33; P = 0.405). A total of 25 papers showing absolute lipid changes post-AMI were identified. The combined data demonstrated a mean fall in total cholesterol of 9% to 11% from baseline over days 3-14 post-AMI, whereas for triglycerides, there was a rise of 18% from baseline to between day 9 and 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: After a secondary analysis of SPACE ROCKET data and a comparison of previously published data, we report a 10% fall in total cholesterol after AMI-a difference that is of high clinical significance. Consequently, measurement of serum lipids in patients with AMI should be performed within the first hours after presentation.

Hepatic metabolism and transporter gene variants enhance response to rosuvastatin in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the GEOSTAT-1 Study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetics aims to maximize benefits and minimize risks of drug treatment. Our objectives were to examine the influence of common variants of hepatic metabolism and transporter genes on the lipid-lowering response to statin therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Genetic Effects On STATins (GEOSTAT-1) Study was a genetic substudy of Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Events-Reduction of Cholesterol to Key European Targets (SPACE ROCKET) (a randomized, controlled trial comparing 40 mg of simvastatin and 10 mg of rosuvastatin) that recruited 601 patients after myocardial infarction. We genotyped the following functional single nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes coding for the cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolic enzymes, CYP2C9*2 (430C>T), CYP2C9*3 (1075A>C), CYP2C19*2 (681G>A), CYP3A5*1 (6986A>G), and hepatic influx and efflux transporters SLCO1B1 (521T>C) and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP; 421C>A). We assessed 3-month LDL cholesterol levels and the proportion of patients reaching the current LDL cholesterol target of <70 mg/dL (<1.81 mmol/L). An enhanced response to rosuvastatin was seen for patients with variant genotypes of either CYP3A5 (P=0.006) or BCRP (P=0.010). Furthermore, multivariate logistic-regression analysis revealed that patients with at least 1 variant CYP3A5 and/or BCRP allele (n=186) were more likely to achieve the LDL cholesterol target (odds ratio: 2.289; 95% CI: 1.157, 4.527; P=0.017; rosuvastatin 54.0% to target vs simvastatin 33.7%). There were no differences for patients with variants of CYP2C9, CYP2C19, or SLCO1B1 in comparison with their respective wild types, nor were differential effects on statin response seen for patients with the most common genotypes for CYP3A5 and BCRP (n=415; odds ratio: 1.207; 95% CI: 0.768, 1.899; P=0.415). CONCLUSION: The LDL cholesterol target was achieved more frequently for the 1 in 3 patients with CYP3A5 and/or BCRP variant genotypes when prescribed rosuvastatin 10 mg, compared with simvastatin 40 mg. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://isrctn.org. Unique identifier: ISRCTN 89508434.

A randomized, controlled trial of simvastatin versus rosuvastatin in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Events--Reduction of Cholesterol to Key European Targets Trial.

AIMS: We sought to evaluate reports that rosuvastatin 10 mg is a more efficacious treatment of hyperlipidaemia than is simvastatin 40 mg, hoping to assess this issue in the previously unstudied context of acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Events - Reduction of Cholesterol to Key European Targets (SPACE ROCKET) Trial was an investigator-led, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicentre, randomized, controlled trial assessing the proportion of patients, at 3 months, achieving European Society of Cardiology 2003 (ESC-03) lipid targets of total cholesterol (TC) less than 4.5 mmol/l (174 mg/dl) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) less than 2.5 mmol/l (97 mg/dl). Of 1263 patients randomized, 77.6% simvastatin versus 79.9% rosuvastatin achieved ESC-03 targets [odds ratio (OR): 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.53; P = 0.29]. There were statistically significant differences for simvastatin versus rosuvastatin, respectively, for mean LDLc 2.03 mmol/l (78 mg/dl) versus 1.94 mmol/l (75 mg/dl; P = 0.009) and also mean TC 3.88 mmol/l (150 mg/dl) versus 3.75 mmol/l (145 mg/dl; P = 0.005). A post-hoc analysis showed higher achievement of the new ESC, American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology optimal lipid target of LDLc less than 1.81 mmol/l (70 mg/dl) with rosuvastatin (45.0%) compared with simvastatin (37.8%; OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.09-1.72; P = 0.007). The proportion of patients achieving the Fourth Joint Task Force European Guidelines (2007) of TC less than 4.0 mmol/l (155 mg/dl) and LDLc less than 2.0 mmol/l (77 mg/dl) was 38.7% for simvastatin 40 mg and 47.7% for rosuvastatin 10 mg (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.18-1.86; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: We observed no superiority of either treatment for the ESC-03 lipid targets. Rosuvastatin 10 mg lowered mean cholesterol more effectively than simvastatin and achieved better results for the latest, more stringent, ESC target.

Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group.

PURPOSE: The aim of the current study is to report the long-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC trial. Results from randomized trials have indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term. Few data are available on rectal cancer, and long-term data on survival and recurrence are now required. METHODS: The United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC; clinical trials number ISRCTN 74883561) trial study comparing conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with cancer of the colon and rectum. The randomization ratio was 2:1 in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], local recurrence, and quality of life [QoL]) have now been determined on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-four patients were recruited (526 laparoscopic and 268 open). Overall, there were no differences in the long-term outcomes. The differences in survival rates were OS of 1.8% (95% CI, -5.2% to 8.8%; P = .55), DFS of -1.4% (95% CI, -9.5% to 6.7%; P = .70), local recurrence of -0.8% (95% CI, -5.7% to 4.2%; P = .76), and QoL (P > .01 for all scales). Higher positivity of the circumferential resection margin was reported after laparoscopic anterior resection (AR), but it did not translate into an increased incidence of local recurrence. CONCLUSION: Successful laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in terms of oncological outcomes and preservation of QoL. Long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer were similar in those undergoing abdominoperineal resection and AR, and support the continued use of laparoscopic surgery in these patients.