REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this methodological review is to evaluate the completeness of reporting of surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials as per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Moreover, we aim to assess for the presence of spin reporting and inconsistency between abstract and main text reporting in surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Studies will be included if they are pilot or feasibility randomised trials of surgical interventions. The primary outcome will be overall CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist completeness. This will be defined as trials reporting each of the 40 items in the CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist. Secondary outcomes will include the reporting of individual studies as per the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, the use of spin reporting strategies, trial factors associated with reporting quality and spin strategy use, and consistency between abstract and main text reporting. Poisson and logistic regressions will be performed to explore the association between trial factors and completeness of reporting as measured by the number of reported CONSORT items. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a methodological survey that has been registered a priori on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023475512). Local ethics approval is not required. We plan to disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Emergency physician gender and head computed tomography orders for older adults who have fallen.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians vary in their computed tomography (CT) scan usage. It remains unclear how physician gender relates to clinical practice or patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the association between physician gender and decision to order head CT scans for older emergency patients who had fallen. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort study conducted in 11 hospital emergency departments (EDs) in Canada and the United States. The primary study enrolled patients who were 65 years and older who presented to the ED after a fall. The analysis evaluated treating physician gender adjusted for multiple clinical variables. Primary analysis used a hierarchical logistic regression model to evaluate the association between treating physician gender and the patient receiving a head CT scan. Secondary analysis reported the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for diagnosing intracranial bleeding by physician gender. RESULTS: There were 3663 patients and 256 physicians included in the primary analysis. In the adjusted analysis, women physicians were no more likely to order a head CT than men (OR 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.61). In the secondary analysis of 2294 patients who received a head CT, physician gender was not associated with finding a clinically important intracranial bleed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant association between physician gender and ordering head CT scans for older emergency patients who had fallen. For patients where CT scans were ordered, there was no significant relationship between physician gender and the diagnosis of clinically important intracranial bleeding.

Proton pump inhibitors for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most commonly prescribed drugs for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. However, concerns have arisen about the possible harms of using PPIs, including potentially increased risk of pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and more seriously, an increased risk of death in the most severely ill patients. Triggered by the REVISE trial, which is a forthcoming large randomized trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in invasively mechanically ventilated patients, we will conduct this systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPIs versus no prophylaxis for critically ill patients. METHODS: We will systematically search randomized trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the literature, and for those eligible trials, extract data and assess risk of bias. We will perform meta-analyses using a random-effects model, and calculate relative risks for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, and the associated 95% confidence intervals. We will conduct subgroup analysis to explore whether the impact of PPIs on mortality differs in more and less severely ill patients. We will assess certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide the most up-to-date evidence regarding the merits and limitations of stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs in critically ill patients in contemporary practice.

Pilot and feasibility trials in surgery are incompletely reported according to the CONSORT checklist: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: Given the key role that pilot and feasibility (PAF) trials play in addressing the challenges of surgical trials, adequate reporting completeness is essential. Our aim was to assess completeness of reporting and evaluate if the items of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for PAF trials have been reported in surgical PAF trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a metaresearch study reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they were pilot or feasibility randomized trials evaluating a surgical intervention. The primary outcome was overall adherence to the CONSORT statement extension to randomized PAF trials checklist. A Poisson regression was performed to explore the association between research factors and reporting completeness. SETTING: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1-December 31, 2011 and 2021. RESULTS: After screening 1991 citations, 38 studies from 2011 to 34 studies from 2021 were included. The mean CONSORT reporting score across all included studies was 21.5 (standard deviation 6.3). After excluding items that were not applicable to all studies, a mean of 20.1 (standard deviation 6.1) of 34 items (0.59) were reported. Studies published in 2021 (vs 2011) did not have a greater number of CONSORT items reported (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.15). Studies registered in a clinical trial registry (IRR 1.29, 95% CI 1.12-1.48) and randomizing more than 50 patients (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.30) were associated with more CONSORT items reported. CONCLUSION: The reporting completeness of surgical PAF trials is poor and has not improved after the publication of the CONSORT extension.

Primary outcome reporting in clinical trials for older adults with depression.

BACKGROUND: Findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are synthesised through meta-analyses, which inform evidence-based decision-making. When key details regarding trial outcomes are not fully reported, knowledge synthesis and uptake of findings into clinical practice are impeded. AIMS: Our study assessed reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs for older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: Trials published between 2011 and 2021, which assessed any intervention for adults aged ≥65 years with a MDD diagnosis, and that specified a single primary outcome were considered for inclusion in our study. Outcome reporting assessment was conducted independently and in duplicate with a 58-item checklist, used in developing the CONSORT-Outcomes statement, and information in each RCT was scored as 'fully reported', 'partially reported' or 'not reported', as applicable. RESULTS: Thirty-one of 49 RCTs reported one primary outcome and were included in our study. Most trials (71%) did not fully report over half of the 58 checklist items. Items pertaining to outcome analyses and interpretation were fully reported by 65% or more of trials. Items reported less frequently included: outcome measurement instrument properties (varied from 3 to 30%) and justification of the criteria used to define clinically meaningful change (23%). CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in how geriatric depression RCTs report primary outcomes, with omission of details regarding measurement, selection, justification and definition of clinically meaningful change. Outcome reporting deficiencies may hinder replicability and synthesis efforts that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making. The CONSORT-Outcomes guideline should be used when reporting geriatric depression RCTs.

LUMINA: Using molecular biomarkers to guide decision making for breast radiotherapy.

In this opinion piece, we respond to comments about the LUMINA trial by Meattini and colleagues in the Journal. LUMINA was a prospective cohort study which evaluated the omission of radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (BCS) in patients treated with endocrine therapy with low risk clinico-pathologic features and luminal A breast cancer. We address their areas of concern including the single cohort design that required careful patient selection, the relatively short follow-up period of 5 years, and the limited follow-up on younger patients. The Ki67 biomarker was key to defining the luminal A phenotype. We clarify the evidence supporting the Ki67 criteria used. The compliance with endocrine therapy was high and similar to other contemporary trials. Based on the results of LUMINA, and mounting evidence from other trials, we feel comfortable offering our patients the option of no radiotherapy after BCS if they fit the trial eligibility criteria from LUMINA and have decided to receive adjuvant endocrine therapy. We concur that a patient-centered approach to treatment decision making should be used to make patients aware of all available information including the results of the LUMINA trial when deciding on post-operative breast radiotherapy.

Fragility of Statistically Significant Outcomes in Colonic Diverticular Disease Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The p value has been criticized as an oversimplified determination of whether a treatment effect exists. One alternative is the fragility index. It is a representation of the minimum number of nonevents that would need to be converted to events to increase the p value above 0.05. OBJECTIVE: To determine the fragility index of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of interventions for patients with diverticular disease since 2010 to assess the robustness of current evidence. DESIGN: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to August 2022. SETTINGS: Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized trials conducted between 2010 and 2022 with parallel, superiority designs evaluating interventions in patients with diverticular disease. Only randomized trials with dichotomous primary outcomes with an associated p value of <0.05 were considered for inclusion. PARTICIPANTS: Any surgical or medical intervention for patients with diverticular disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The fragility index was determined by adding events and subtracting nonevents from the groups with the smaller number of events. Events were added until the p value exceeded 0.05. The smallest number of events required was considered the fragility index. RESULTS: After screening 1271 citations, 15 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the studies evaluated surgical interventions and 6 evaluated medical interventions. The mean number of patients randomly assigned and lost to follow-up per randomized controlled trial was 92 (SD 35.3) and 9 (SD 11.4), respectively. The median fragility index was 1 (range, 0-5). The fragility indices for the included studies did not correlate significantly with any study characteristics. LIMITATIONS: Small sample, heterogeneity, and lack of inclusion of studies with continuous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The randomized trials evaluating surgical and medical interventions for diverticular disease are not robust. Changing a single-outcome event in most studies was sufficient to make a statistically significant study finding not significant. See Video Abstract . FRAGILIDAD DE LOS RESULTADOS ESTADSTICAMENTE SIGNIFICATIVOS EN ENSAYOS ALEATORIOS DE ENFERMEDAD DIVERTICULAR DEL COLON UNA REVISIN SISTEMTICA: ANTECEDENTES:El valor p ha sido criticado por una determinación demasiado simplificada de si existe un efecto del tratamiento. Una alternativa es el Índice de Fragilidad. Es una representación del número mínimo de no eventos que deberían convertirse en eventos para aumentar el valor p por encima de 0,05.OBJETIVO:Determinar el IF de ensayos controlados aleatorios que evalúan la eficacia de las intervenciones para pacientes con enfermedad diverticular desde 2010 para evaluar la solidez de la evidencia actual.FUENTES DE DATOS:Se realizaron búsquedas en MEDLINE, Embase y CENTRAL desde el inicio hasta agosto de 2022.SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS:Los artículos eran elegibles para su inclusión si eran ensayos aleatorizados realizados entre 2010 y 2022 con diseños paralelos de superioridad que evaluaran intervenciones en pacientes con enfermedad diverticular. Sólo se consideraron para su inclusión los ensayos aleatorizados con resultados primarios dicotómicos con un valor de p asociado menor que 0,05.INTERVENCIÓNES:Cualquier intervención quirúrgica o médica para pacientes con enfermedad diverticular.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:El índice de fragilidad se determinó sumando eventos y restando no eventos de los grupos con el menor número de eventos. Se agregaron eventos hasta que el valor p superó 0,05. El menor número de eventos requeridos se consideró índice de fragilidad.RESULTADOS:Después de examinar 1271 citas, 15 ensayos aleatorios cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Nueve de los estudios evaluaron intervenciones quirúrgicas y seis evaluaron intervenciones médicas. El número medio de pacientes aleatorizados y perdidos durante el seguimiento por ECA fue 92 (DE 35,3) y 9 (DE 11,4), respectivamente. La mediana del índice de fragilidad fue 1 (rango: 0-5). Los índices de fragilidad de los estudios incluidos no se correlacionaron significativamente con ninguna característica del estudio.LIMITACIONES:Muestra pequeña, heterogeneidad y falta de inclusión de estudios con resultados continuos.CONCLUSIONES:Los ensayos aleatorios que evalúan las intervenciones quirúrgicas y médicas para la enfermedad diverticular no son sólidos. Cambiar un solo evento de resultado en la mayoría de los estudios fue suficiente para que un hallazgo estadísticamente significativo del estudio no fuera significativo. (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

The impact of operative approach for obese colorectal cancer patients: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019.

AIM: Obesity is a well-established risk factor for the development of colorectal cancer. As such, patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer have increasingly higher body mass indices (BMIs). The advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques in recent years have helped surgeons circumvent some of the challenges associated with operating in the setting of obesity. While previous studies suggest that laparoscopy improves outcomes compared with open surgery in obese patients, this has never been established at the population level. Therefore, we designed a retrospective database study using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) with the aim of comparing laparoscopic with open approaches for obese patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of the NIS from 2015 to 2019 was conducted including patients with a BMI of greater than 30 kg/m2 undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. The primary outcomes were postoperative in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative system-specific complications, total admission healthcare cost and length of stay (LOS). Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were utilized to compare the two operative approaches. RESULTS: A total of 4742 patients underwent open surgery and 3231 underwent laparoscopic surgery. We observed a significant decrease in overall postoperative morbidity [17.5% vs. 31.4%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.64; p < 0.001], gastrointestinal morbidity (8.1% vs. 14.5%, aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.69; p < 0.001) and genitourinary morbidity (10.1% vs. 18.6%, aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52-0.70; p < 0.001) with the use of laparoscopy. Postoperative LOS was 1.7 days shorter (95% CI 1.5-2.0, p < 0.001) and cost of admission was decreased by $9106 (95% CI $4638-$13 573, p < 0.001) with laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery for obese patients with colorectal cancer is associated with significantly decreased postoperative morbidity and improved healthcare resource utilization compared with open surgery. Laparoscopic approaches should be relied upon whenever feasible for these patients.

Compelling evidence from meta-epidemiological studies demonstrates overestimation of effects in randomized trials that fail to optimize randomization and blind patients and outcome assessors.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic survey of meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. We included only meta-epidemiological studies that either preserved the clustering of trials within meta-analyses (compared effect estimates between trials with and without the potential risk of bias element within each meta-analysis, then combined across meta-analyses; between-trial comparisons), or preserved the clustering of substudies within trials (compared effect estimates between substudies with and without the element, then combined across trials; within-trial comparisons). Separately for studies based on between- and within-trial comparisons, we extracted ratios of odds ratios (RORs) from each study and combined them using a random-effects model. We made overall inferences and assessed certainty of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, development, and Evaluation and Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses. RESULTS: Forty-one meta-epidemiological studies (34 of between-, 7 of within-trial comparisons) proved eligible. Inadequate random sequence generation (ROR 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) probably lead to effect overestimation (moderate certainty). Lack of patients blinding probably overestimates effects for patient-reported outcomes (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.48; moderate certainty). Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in effect overestimation for subjective outcomes (ROR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; high certainty). The impact of patients or outcome assessors blinding on other outcomes, and the impact of blinding of health-care providers, data collectors, or data analysts, remain uncertain. Trials stopped early for benefit probably overestimate effects (moderate certainty). Trials with imbalanced cointerventions may overestimate effects, while trials with missing outcome data may underestimate effects (low certainty). Influence of baseline imbalance, compliance, selective reporting, and intention-to-treat analysis remain uncertain. CONCLUSION: Failure to ensure random sequence generation or adequate allocation concealment probably results in modest overestimates of effects. Lack of patients blinding probably leads to substantial overestimates of effects for patient-reported outcomes. Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in substantial effect overestimation for subjective outcomes. For other elements, though evidence for consistent systematic overestimate of effect remains limited, failure to implement these safeguards may still introduce important bias.

Derivation of the Falls Decision Rule to exclude intracranial bleeding without head CT in older adults who have fallen.

BACKGROUND: Ground-level falls are common among older adults and are the most frequent cause of traumatic intracranial bleeding. The aim of this study was to derive a clinical decision rule that safely excludes clinically important intracranial bleeding in older adults who present to the emergency department after a fall, without the need for a computed tomography (CT) scan of the head. METHODS: This prospective cohort study in 11 emergency departments in Canada and the United States enrolled patients aged 65 years or older who presented after falling from standing on level ground, off a chair or toilet seat, or out of bed. We collected data on 17 potential predictor variables. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of clinically important intracranial bleeding within 42 days of the index emergency department visit. An independent adjudication committee, blinded to baseline data, determined the primary outcome. We derived a clinical decision rule using logistic regression. RESULTS: The cohort included 4308 participants, with a median age of 83 years; 2770 (64%) were female, 1119 (26%) took anticoagulant medication and 1567 (36%) took antiplatelet medication. Of the participants, 139 (3.2%) received a diagnosis of clinically important intracranial bleeding. We developed a decision rule indicating that no head CT is required if there is no history of head injury on falling; no amnesia of the fall; no new abnormality on neurologic examination; and the Clinical Frailty Scale score is less than 5. Rule sensitivity was 98.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.9%-99.6%), specificity was 20.3% (95% CI 19.1%-21.5%) and negative predictive value was 99.8% (95% CI 99.2%-99.9%). INTERPRETATION: We derived a Falls Decision Rule, which requires external validation, followed by clinical impact assessment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT03745755.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols following emergency intra-abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery improve postoperative outcomes as compared to conventional care. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, WoS, CENTRAL, and Pubmed were searched from inception to December 2022. Articles were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCT) or non-randomized studies comparing ERAS protocols to conventional care for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The outcomes included postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity, prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI), and readmission. An inverse variance random effects meta-analysis was performed. A risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane tools. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE. RESULTS: After screening 1018 citations, 20 studies with 1615 patients in ERAS programs and 1933 patients receiving conventional care were included. There was a reduction in postoperative LOS in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery (MD3.35, 95% CI 2.52-4.17, p < 0.00001) and lower GI surgery (MD2.80, 95% CI 2.62-2.99, p < 0.00001). There was a reduction in postoperative morbidity in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper GI surgery (RR0.56, 95% CI 0.30-1.02, p = 0.06) and lower GI surgery (RR 0.66, 95%CI 0.52-0.85, p = 0.001). In the upper and lower GI subgroup, there were nonsignificant reductions in PPOI in the ERAS groups (RR0.59, 95% CI 0.30-1.17, p = 0.13; RR0.49, 95% CI 0.21-1.14, p = 0.10). There was a nonsignificant increased risk of readmission in the ERAS group (RR1.60, 95% CI 0.57-4.50, p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: There is low-to-very-low certainty evidence supporting the use ERAS protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The currently available data are limited by imprecision.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols following emergency intra-abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate whether the implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for adult patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery decreases postoperative length of stay, postoperative morbidity, and mortality compared to conventional perioperative care. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). It has been registered on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42023391709). A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies published and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Pubmed databases since their inception. Trial registries and references of included studies and pertinent previous systematic reviews will also be searched. Studies will be included if they are randomized controlled trials or cohort studies evaluating adult patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery and comparing ERAS or modified ERAS protocols to conventional perioperative care and report one of the following outcomes: postoperative length of stay, overall 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, 30-day infectious morbidity, prolonged postoperative ileus, return of bowel function, and 30-day readmissions. A meta-analysis will be performed using a random effects model for all comparative data using Cochrane Review Manager 5.3 (London, United Kingdom). DISCUSSION: ERAS protocols have become standard of care for patients undergoing elective surgery. Their use in the setting of emergency surgery is far less common. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess whether there are benefits in patient important outcomes with the implementation of ERAS protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. Ultimately, we hope to promote their use and further large randomized controlled trials evaluating emergency surgery ERAS programs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023391709.

A history of bariatric surgery before surgery for colorectal cancer may improve short-term postoperative outcomes: Analysis of the national inpatient sample 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is the most effective and sustainable form of weight loss. Bariatric surgery before elective operations for colorectal pathology may improve postoperative outcomes. To compare patients with and without prior bariatric surgery undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity and health care use. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer from 2015 to 2019 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were stratified according to their history of bariatric surgery. Propensity score matching with 4:1 nearest-neighbor matching was performed according to demographic, operative, and hospital characteristics. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included system-specific postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, postoperative length of stay, total admission health care cost, and post-discharge disposition. McNemar's test and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test were performed. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1,197 patients without prior bariatric surgery and 376 patients with prior bariatric surgery were included. Patients with prior bariatric surgery had an absolute reduction of 6.5% in overall in-hospital postoperative morbidity (19.1% vs 25.6%, P < .0001), a $5,256 decrease in hospitalization cost ($70,344 vs $75,600, P = .034), and were more likely to be discharged home after their index operation (72.9% vs 63.9%, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery before surgery for colorectal cancer may be associated with decreased postoperative morbidity and health care use. Bariatric surgery and other forms of rapid and effective weight loss, such as very low-energy diets, should be evaluated further for the optimization of obese patients before nonbariatric abdominal surgery.

Omitting Radiotherapy after Breast-Conserving Surgery in Luminal A Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiotherapy is prescribed after breast-conserving surgery to reduce the risk of local recurrence. However, radiotherapy is inconvenient, costly, and associated with both short-term and long-term side effects. Clinicopathologic factors alone are of limited use in the identification of women at low risk for local recurrence in whom radiotherapy can be omitted. Molecularly defined intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer can provide additional prognostic information. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study involving women who were at least 55 years of age, had undergone breast-conserving surgery for T1N0 (tumor size <2 cm and node negative), grade 1 or 2, luminal A-subtype breast cancer (defined as estrogen receptor positivity of ≥1%, progesterone receptor positivity of >20%, negative human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Ki67 index of ≤13.25%), and had received adjuvant endocrine therapy. Patients who met the clinical eligibility criteria were registered, and Ki67 immunohistochemical analysis was performed centrally. Patients with a Ki67 index of 13.25% or less were enrolled and did not receive radiotherapy. The primary outcome was local recurrence in the ipsilateral breast. In consultation with radiation oncologists and patients with breast cancer, we determined that if the upper boundary of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the cumulative incidence at 5 years was less than 5%, this would represent an acceptable risk of local recurrence at 5 years. RESULTS: Of 740 registered patients, 500 eligible patients were enrolled. At 5 years after enrollment, recurrence was reported in 2.3% of the patients (90% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 3.8; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.1), a result that met the prespecified boundary. Breast cancer occurred in the contralateral breast in 1.9% of the patients (90% CI, 1.1 to 3.2), and recurrence of any type was observed in 2.7% (90% CI, 1.6 to 4.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among women who were at least 55 years of age and had T1N0, grade 1 or 2, luminal A breast cancer that were treated with breast-conserving surgery and endocrine therapy alone, the incidence of local recurrence at 5 years was low with the omission of radiotherapy. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation; LUMINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01791829.).

Very low energy diets prior to bariatric surgery may reduce postoperative morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Purpose: To optimize patients prior to bariatric surgery, very low energy diets (VLEDs) are often employed for 2-4 weeks preoperatively. They are known to result in preoperative weight loss, decrease liver volume, and decrease surgeon-perceived operative difficulty. Their impact on postoperative morbidity has been less extensively studied. We performed a focused systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of comparing preoperative VLEDs prior to bariatric surgery with controls in terms of overall postoperative morbidity. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from database inception to February 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing postoperative morbidity in adult patients (i.e., over the age of 18) receiving a VLED with liquid formulation to those receiving a non-VLED control prior to elective bariatric surgery. Outcomes included overall 30-day postoperative morbidity and preoperative weight loss. An inverse variance meta-analysis was performed with GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence. Results: After reviewing 2,525 citations, four RCTs with 294 patients receiving preoperative VLEDs with liquid formulation and 294 patients receiving a non-VLED control met inclusion. Patients receiving VLED experienced significantly more preoperative weight loss than patients receiving control (mean difference (MD) 3.38 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-5.70, p = 0.004, I2 = 95%). According to low certainty evidence, there was a non-significant reduction in 30-day postoperative morbidity in patients receiving VLED prior to bariatric surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95%CI 0.39-1.17, p = 0.16, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: The impact of preoperative VLEDs on postoperative outcomes following bariatric surgery remains unclear. It is possible that VLEDs may contribute to decreased postoperative morbidity, but further larger prospective trials are required to investigate the signal identified in this study.

Diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism: a prediction model based on a patient data meta-analysis.

AIMS: Risk stratification is used for decisions regarding need for imaging in patients with clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The aim was to develop a clinical prediction model that provides an individualized, accurate probability estimate for the presence of acute PE in patients with suspected disease based on readily available clinical items and D-dimer concentrations. METHODS AND RESULTS: An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed based on sixteen cross-sectional or prospective studies with data from 28 305 adult patients with clinically suspected PE from various clinical settings, including primary care, emergency care, hospitalized and nursing home patients. A multilevel logistic regression model was built and validated including ten a priori defined objective candidate predictors to predict objectively confirmed PE at baseline or venous thromboembolism (VTE) during follow-up of 30 to 90 days. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Backward elimination was performed with a P-value <0.10. Discrimination (c-statistic with 95% confidence intervals [CI] and prediction intervals [PI]) and calibration (outcome:expected [O:E] ratio and calibration plot) were evaluated based on internal-external cross-validation. The accuracy of the model was subsequently compared with algorithms based on the Wells score and D-dimer testing. The final model included age (in years), sex, previous VTE, recent surgery or immobilization, haemoptysis, cancer, clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, inpatient status, D-dimer (in µg/L), and an interaction term between age and D-dimer. The pooled c-statistic was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89; 95% PI, 0.77-0.93) and overall calibration was very good (pooled O:E ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.14; 95% PI, 0.55-1.79). The model slightly overestimated VTE probability in the lower range of estimated probabilities. Discrimination of the current model in the validation data sets was better than that of the Wells score combined with a D-dimer threshold based on age (c-statistic 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.75) or structured clinical pretest probability (c-statistic 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81). CONCLUSION: The present model provides an absolute, individualized probability of PE presence in a broad population of patients with suspected PE, with very good discrimination and calibration. Its clinical utility needs to be evaluated in a prospective management or impact study. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID 89366.

Accuracy of physicians' intuitive risk estimation in the diagnostic management of pulmonary embolism: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In patients clinically suspected of having pulmonary embolism (PE), physicians often rely on intuitive estimation ("gestalt") of PE presence. Although shown to be predictive, gestalt is criticized for its assumed variation across physicians and lack of standardization. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of gestalt in the diagnosis of PE and gain insight into its possible variation. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis including patients suspected of having PE. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of gestalt for the diagnosis of PE, quantified as risk ratio (RR) between gestalt and PE based on 2-stage random-effect log-binomial meta-analysis regression as well as gestalts' sensitivity and specificity. The variability of these measures was explored across different health care settings, publication period, PE prevalence, patient subgroups (sex, heart failure, chronic lung disease, and items of the Wells score other than gestalt), and age. RESULTS: We analyzed 20 770 patients suspected of having PE from 16 original studies. The prevalence of PE in patients with and without a positive gestalt was 28.8% vs 9.1%, respectively. The overall RR was 3.02 (95% CI, 2.35-3.87), and the overall sensitivity and specificity were 74% (95% CI, 68%-79%) and 61% (95% CI, 53%-68%), respectively. Although variation was observed across individual studies (I2, 90.63%), the diagnostic accuracy was consistent across all subgroups and health care settings. CONCLUSION: A positive gestalt was associated with a 3-fold increased risk of PE in suspected patients. Although variation was observed across studies, the RR of gestalt was similar across prespecified subgroups and health care settings, exemplifying its diagnostic value for all patients suspected of having PE.

Impact of 18F-Labeled Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Versus Conventional Staging in Patients With Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) typically undergo staging tests at presentation. If staging does not detect metastases, treatment consists of curative intent combined modality therapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and regional radiation). Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) may detect more asymptomatic distant metastases, but the evidence is based on uncontrolled studies. METHODS: For inclusion, patients had histological evidence of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and TNM stage III or IIb (T3N0, but not T2N1). Consenting patients from six regional cancer centers in Ontario were randomly assigned to 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of the chest/abdomen and pelvis). The primary end point was upstaging to stage IV. A key secondary outcome was receiving curative intent combined modality therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02751710). RESULTS: Between December 2016 and April 2022, 184 patients were randomly assigned to whole-body PET-CT and 185 patients to conventional staging. Forty-three (23%) PET-CT patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 21 (11%) conventional staged patients (absolute difference, 12.3% [95% CI, 3.9 to 19.9]; P = .002). Consequently, treatment was changed in 35 (81.3%) of 43 upstaged PET-CT patients and 20 (95.2%) of the 21 upstaged conventional patients. Subsequently, 149 (81%) patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment versus 165 (89.2%) patients in the conventional staging group (absolute difference, 8.2% [95% CI, 0.1 to 15.4]; P = .03). CONCLUSION: In patients with LABC, PET-CT detected more distant metastases than conventional staging, and fewer PET-CT patients received combined modality therapy. Our randomized trial demonstrates the utility of the PET-CT staging strategy.

Trials using composite outcomes neglect the presence of competing risks: a methodological survey of cardiovascular studies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how frequently competing risks were accounted for in recently published cardiovascular disease (CVD) trials with composite end points. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a methodological survey of CVD trials that used composite end points and published from January 1 to September 27, 2021. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were categorized according to whether they mentioned a competing risk analysis plan. If yes, whether a competing risk analysis was proposed as the primary or sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Among the 136 included studies, only 14 (10.3%) conducted a competing risk analysis and reported the corresponding results. Seven (50%) of them conducted a competing risk analysis as their primary analysis, whereas the other seven (50%) as a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of their findings. The most commonly used competing risk analysis methods were the subdistribution hazard model (nine studies), followed by the cause-specific hazard model (four studies) and restricted mean time lost method (one study). None of the studies accounted for competing risks in their sample size calculations. CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the pressing need for and importance of applying appropriate competing risk analysis in this field to disseminate clinically meaningful and unbiased results.