External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION: In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.

Effect of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy With Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion vs Open Radical Cystectomy on 90-Day Morbidity and Mortality Among Patients With Bladder Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy is being performed with increasing frequency, but it is unclear whether total intracorporeal surgery improves recovery compared with open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Objectives: To compare recovery and morbidity after robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal reconstruction vs open radical cystectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of patients with nonmetastatic bladder cancer recruited at 9 sites in the UK, from March 2017-March 2020. Follow-up was conducted at 90 days, 6 months, and 12 months, with final follow-up on September 23, 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal reconstruction (n = 169) or open radical cystectomy (n = 169). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital within 90 days of surgery. There were 20 secondary outcomes, including complications, quality of life, disability, stamina, activity levels, and survival. Analyses were adjusted for the type of diversion and center. Results: Among 338 randomized participants, 317 underwent radical cystectomy (mean age, 69 years; 67 women [21%]; 107 [34%] received neoadjuvant chemotherapy; 282 [89%] underwent ileal conduit reconstruction); the primary outcome was analyzed in 305 (96%). The median number of days alive and out of the hospital within 90 days of surgery was 82 (IQR, 76-84) for patients undergoing robotic surgery vs 80 (IQR, 72-83) for open surgery (adjusted difference, 2.2 days [95% CI, 0.50-3.85]; P = .01). Thromboembolic complications (1.9% vs 8.3%; difference, -6.5% [95% CI, -11.4% to -1.4%]) and wound complications (5.6% vs 16.0%; difference, -11.7% [95% CI, -18.6% to -4.6%]) were less common with robotic surgery than open surgery. Participants undergoing open surgery reported worse quality of life vs robotic surgery at 5 weeks (difference in mean European Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 5-Level instrument scores, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.11 to -0.03]; P = .003) and greater disability at 5 weeks (difference in World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 scores, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.15-0.73]; P = .003) and at 12 weeks (difference in WHODAS 2.0 scores, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.09-0.68]; P = .01); the differences were not significant after 12 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences in cancer recurrence (29/161 [18%] vs 25/156 [16%] after robotic and open surgery, respectively) and overall mortality (23/161 [14.3%] vs 23/156 [14.7%]), respectively) at median follow-up of 18.4 months (IQR, 12.8-21.1). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with nonmetastatic bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy, treatment with robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion vs open radical cystectomy resulted in a statistically significant increase in days alive and out of the hospital over 90 days. However, the clinical importance of these findings remains uncertain. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN13680280; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03049410.

New clinical and biological insights from the international TARGIT-A randomised trial of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial reported risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) during lumpectomy for breast cancer to be as effective as whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Here, we present further detailed analyses. METHODS: In total, 2298 women (≥45 years, invasive ductal carcinoma ≤3.5 cm, cN0-N1) were randomised. We investigated the impact of tumour size, grade, ER, PgR, HER2 and lymph node status on local recurrence-free survival, and of local recurrence on distant relapse and mortality. We analysed the predictive factors for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT as part of the risk-adapted approach, using regression modelling. Non-breast cancer mortality was compared between TARGIT-IORT plus EBRT vs. EBRT. RESULTS: Local recurrence-free survival was no different between TARGIT-IORT and EBRT, in every tumour subgroup. Unlike in the EBRT arm, local recurrence in the TARGIT-IORT arm was not a predictor of a higher risk of distant relapse or death. Our new predictive tool for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT is at https://targit.org.uk/addrt . Non-breast cancer mortality was significantly lower in the TARGIT-IORT arm, even when patients received supplemental EBRT, HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.88) P = 0.0091. CONCLUSION: TARGIT-IORT is as effective as EBRT in all subgroups. Local recurrence after TARGIT-IORT, unlike after EBRT, has a good prognosis. TARGIT-IORT might have a beneficial abscopal effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34086741 (21/7/2004), NCT00983684 (24/9/2009).

MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

Prostate Radiofrequency Focal Ablation (ProRAFT) Trial: A Prospective Development Study Evaluating a Bipolar Radiofrequency Device to Treat Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We determined the early efficacy of bipolar radiofrequency ablation with a coil design for focal ablation of clinically significant localized prostate cancer visible at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective IDEAL phase 2 development study (Focal Prostate Radiofrequency Ablation, NCT02294903) recruited treatment-naïve patients with a single focus of significant localized prostate cancer (Gleason 7 or 4 mm or more of Gleason 6) concordant with a lesion visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Intervention was a focal ablation with a bipolar radiofrequency system (Encage™) encompassing the lesion and a predefined margin using nonrigid magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. Primary outcome was the proportion of men with absence of significant localized disease on biopsy at 6 months. Trial followup consisted of serum prostate specific antigen, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 1 week, and 6 and 12 months post-ablation. Validated patient reported outcome measures for urinary, erectile and bowel functions, and adverse events monitoring system were used. Analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. RESULTS: Of 21 patients recruited 20 received the intervention. Baseline characteristics were median age 66 years (IQR 63-69) and preoperative median prostate specific antigen 7.9 ng/ml (5.3-9.6). A total of 18 patients (90%) had Gleason 7 disease with median maximum cancer 7 mm (IQR 5-10), for a median of 2.8 cc multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions (IQR 1.4-4.8). Targeted biopsy of the treated area (median number of cores 6, IQR 5-8) showed absence of significant localized prostate cancer in 16/20 men (80%), concordant with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. There was a low profile of side effects at patient reported outcome measures analysis and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy of significant localized prostate cancer associated with a magnetic resonance imaging lesion using bipolar radiofrequency showed early efficacy to ablate cancer with low rates of genitourinary and rectal side effects.

NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To report on the methods, peri-operative outcomes and histopathological concordance between frozen and final section from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study (NCT03317990). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2018 and March 2019, 49 patients at two UK centres underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Twenty-five patient were randomized to NeuroSAFE RARP (intervention arm) and 24 to standard RARP (control arm). Frozen section was compared to final paraffin section margin assessment in the 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm. Operation timings and complications were collected prospectively in both arms. RESULTS: Fifty neurovascular bundles (NVBs) from 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm were analysed. When analysed by each pathological section (n = 250, average five per side), we noted a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.2%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.994 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.985 to 1; P ≤0.001). On an NVB basis (n = 50), sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 92.7%, and the AUC was 0.963 (95% CI 0.914 to 1; P ≤0.001). NeuroSAFE RARP lasted a mean of 3 h 16 min (knife to skin to off table, 95% CI 3 h 2 min-3 h 30 min) compared to 2 h 4 min (95% CI 2 h 2 min-2 h 25 min; P ≤0.001) for standard RARP. There was no morbidity associated with the additional length of operating time on in the NeuroSAFE arm. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study demonstrates the safety, reproducibility and excellent histopathological concordance of the NeuroSAFE technique in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Although the technique increases the duration of RARP, this does not cause short-term harm. Confirmation of feasibility has led to the opening of the fully powered NeuroSAFE PROOF randomized controlled trial, which is currently under way at four sites in the UK.

Pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: health utility scores by EQ-5D-3L in a randomized controlled trial show no benefit from lung metastasectomy.

AIM: The aim was to assess the health utility of lung metastasectomy in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. METHODS: Multidisciplinary CRC teams at 14 sites recruited patients to a two-arm randomized controlled trial-Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC). Remote randomization was used, stratified by site and with minimization for seven known confounders. Participants completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire together with other patient reported outcome measures at randomization and then again at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. These were returned by post to the coordinating centre. RESULTS: Between December 2010 and December 2016, 93 participants were randomized, 91 of whom returned questionnaires. Survival and patient reported quality of life have been published previously, revealing no significant differences between the trial arms. Described here are patient reported data from the five dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L and the visual analogue scale (VAS) health state. No significant difference was seen at any time point. The estimated difference between control and metastasectomy patients was -0.23 (95% CI -0.113, 0.066) for the composite 0 to 1 index scale based on the descriptive system and 0.123 (95% CI -7.24, 7.49) for the 0 to 100 VAS scale. CONCLUSIONS: Following lung metastasectomy for CRC, no benefit was demonstrated for health utility, which alongside a lack of a survival or quality of life benefit calls into question the widespread use of the procedure.

The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) burden of care study: Analysis of local treatments for lung metastases and systemic chemotherapy in 220 patients in the PulMiCC cohort.

AIM: The aim of this work was to examine the burden of further treatments in patients with colorectal cancer following a decision about lung metastasectomy. METHOD: Five teams participating in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) study provided details on subsequent local treatments for lung metastases, including the use of chemotherapy. For patients in three groups (no metastasectomy, one metastasectomy or multiple local interventions), baseline factors and selection criteria for additional treatments were examined. RESULTS: The five teams recruited 220 patients between October 2010 and January 2017. No lung metastasectomy was performed in 51 patients, 114 patients had one metastasectomy and 55 patients had multiple local interventions. Selection for initial metastasectomy was associated with nonelevated carcinoembryonic antigen, fewer metastases and no prior liver metastasectomy. These patients also had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores and lung function at baseline. Four sites provided information on chemotherapy in 139 patients: 79 (57%) had one to five courses of chemotherapy, to a total of 179 courses. The patterns of survival after one or multiple metastasectomy interventions showed evidence of guarantee-time bias contributing to an impression of benefit over no metastasectomy. After repeated metastasectomy, a significantly higher risk of death was observed, with no apparent reduction in chemotherapy usage. CONCLUSION: Repeated metastasectomy is associated with a higher risk of death without reducing the use of chemotherapy. Continued monitoring without surgery might reassure patients with indolent disease or allow response assessment during systemic treatment. Overall, the carefully collected information from the PulMICC study provides no indication of an important survival benefit from metastasectomy.

The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer cohort study: Analysis of case selection, risk factors and survival in a prospective observational study of 512 patients.

AIM: We wanted to examine survival in patients with resected colorectal cancer (CRC) whose lung metastases are or are not resected. METHODS: Teams participating in the study of Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) identified potential candidates for lung metastasectomy and invited their consent to join Stage 1. Baseline data related to CRC and fitness for surgery were collected. Eligible patients were invited to consent for randomization in the PulMiCC randomized controlled trial (Stage 2). Sites were provided with case report forms for non-randomized patients to record adverse events and death at any time. They were all reviewed at 1 year. Baseline and survival data were analysed for the full cohort. RESULTS: Twenty-five clinical sites recruited 512 patients from October 2010 to January 2017. Data collection closed in October 2020. Before analysis, 28 patients with non-CRC lung lesions were excluded and three had withdrawn consent leaving 481. The date of death was known for 292 patients, 136 were alive in 2020 and 53 at earlier time points. Baseline factors and 5-year survival were analysed in three strata: 128 non-randomized patients did not have metastasectomy; 263 had elective metastasectomy; 90 were from the randomized trial. The proportions of solitary metastases for electively operated and non-operated patients were 69% and 35%. Their respective 5-year survivals were 47% and 22%. CONCLUSION: Survival without metastasectomy was greater than widely presumed. Difference in survival appeared to be largely related to selection. No inference can be drawn about the effect of metastasectomy on survival in this observational study.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details. MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Induction immunosuppression in adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is considered the definitive treatment for people with liver failure. As part of post-liver transplantation management, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections. Immunosuppressive drugs can be classified into those that are used for a short period during the beginning phase of immunosuppression (induction immunosuppression) and those that are used over the entire lifetime of the individual (maintenance immunosuppression), because it is widely believed that graft rejections are more common during the first few months after liver transplantation. Some drugs such as glucocorticosteroids may be used for both induction and maintenance immunosuppression because of their multiple modalities of action. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether induction immunosuppression is necessary and if so, the relative efficacy of different immunosuppressive agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different induction immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different induction immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until July 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in adults undergoing liver transplantation. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults undergoing liver transplantation. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had multivisceral transplantation and those who already had graft rejections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 25 trials (3271 participants; 8 treatments) in the review. Twenty-three trials (3017 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people undergoing primary liver transplantation for various indications and excluded those with HIV and those with renal impairment. The follow-up in the trials ranged from three to 76 months, with a median follow-up of 12 months among trials. All except one trial were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Overall, approximately 7.4% of people who received the standard regimen of glucocorticosteroid induction died and 12.2% developed graft failure. All-cause mortality and graft failure was lower with basiliximab compared with glucocorticosteroid induction: all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CrI 0.31 to 0.93; network estimate, based on 2 direct comparison trials (131 participants; low-certainty evidence)); and graft failure (HR 0.44, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.70; direct estimate, based on 1 trial (47 participants; low-certainty evidence)). There was no evidence of differences in all-cause mortality and graft failure between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of differences in serious adverse events (proportion), serious adverse events (number), renal failure, any adverse events (proportion), any adverse events (number), liver retransplantation, graft rejections (any), or graft rejections (requiring treatment) between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the studies reported health-related quality of life. FUNDING: the source of funding for 14 trials was drug companies who would benefit from the results of the study; two trials were funded by neutral organisations who have no vested interests in the results of the study; and the source of funding for the remaining nine trials was unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low-certainty evidence, basiliximab induction may decrease mortality and graft failure compared to glucocorticosteroids induction in people undergoing liver transplantation. However, there is considerable uncertainty about this finding because this information is based on small trials at high risk of bias. The evidence is uncertain about the effects of different induction immunosuppressants on other clinical outcomes, including graft rejections. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft failure, and health-related quality of life.

DETECT I & DETECT II: a study protocol for a prospective multicentre observational study to validate the UroMark assay for the detection of bladder cancer from urinary cells.

BACKGROUND: Haematuria is a common finding in general practice which requires visual inspection of the bladder by cystoscopy as well as upper tract imaging. In addition, patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) often require surveillance cystoscopy as often as three monthly depending on disease risk. However, cystoscopy is an invasive procedure which is uncomfortable, requires hospital attendance and is associated with a risk of urinary tract infection. We have developed the UroMark assay, which can detect 150 methylation specific alteration specific to bladder cancer using DNA from urinary sediment cells. METHODS: DETECT I and DETECT II are two multi-centre prospective observational studies designed to conduct a robust validation of the UroMark assay. DETECT I will recruit patients having diagnostic investigations for haematuria to determine the negative predictive value of the UroMark to rule out the presence of bladder cancer. DETECT II will recruit patients with new or recurrent bladder cancer to determine the sensitivity of the UroMark in detecting low, intermediate and high grade bladder cancer. NMIBC patients in DETECT II will be followed up with three monthly urine sample collection for 24 months while having surveillance cystoscopy. DETECT II will include a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews to explore patients' experience of being diagnosed with bladder cancer and having cystoscopy and a urinary test for bladder cancer surveillance. Results of the UroMark will be compared to cystoscopy findings and histopathological results in patients with bladder cancer. DISCUSSION: A sensitive and specific urinary biomarker will revolutionise the haematuria diagnostic pathway and surveillance strategies for NMIBC patients. None of the six approved US Food and Drug Administration urinary test are recommended as a standalone test. The UroMark assay is based on next generation sequencing technology which interrogates 150 loci and represents a step change compared to other biomarker panels. This enhances the sensitivity of the test and by using a random forest classifier approach, where the UroMark results are derived from a cut off generated from known outcomes of previous samples, addresses many shortcomings of previous assays. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Both trails are registered on clinicaltrials.gov. DETECT I: NCT02676180 (18th December 2015). DETECT II: NCT02781428 (11th May 2016).

Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial compared risk-adapted radiotherapy using single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for breast cancer. We report 5-year results for local recurrence and the first analysis of overall survival. METHODS: TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TARGIT or whole-breast EBRT, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy: randomisation occurred either before lumpectomy (prepathology stratum, TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy) or after lumpectomy (postpathology stratum, TARGIT given subsequently by reopening the wound). Patients in the TARGIT group received supplemental EBRT (excluding a boost) if unforeseen adverse features were detected on final pathology, thus radiotherapy was risk-adapted. The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2·5% at 5 years; prespecified analyses included outcomes as per timing of randomisation in relation to lumpectomy. Secondary outcomes included complications and mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled at 33 centres in 11 countries, between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012. 1721 patients were randomised to TARGIT and 1730 to EBRT. Supplemental EBRT after TARGIT was necessary in 15·2% [239 of 1571] of patients who received TARGIT (21·6% prepathology, 3·6% postpathology). 3451 patients had a median follow-up of 2 years and 5 months (IQR 12-52 months), 2020 of 4 years, and 1222 of 5 years. The 5-year risk for local recurrence in the conserved breast was 3·3% (95% CI 2·1-5·1) for TARGIT versus 1·3% (0·7-2·5) for EBRT (p=0·042). TARGIT concurrently with lumpectomy (prepathology, n=2298) had much the same results as EBRT: 2·1% (1·1-4·2) versus 1·1% (0·5-2·5; p=0·31). With delayed TARGIT (postpathology, n=1153) the between-group difference was larger than 2·5% (TARGIT 5·4% [3·0-9·7] vs EBRT 1·7% [0·6-4·9]; p=0·069). Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6% [1·5-4·3] for TARGIT vs 1·9% [1·1-3·2] for EBRT; p=0·56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1·4% [0·8-2·5] vs 3·5% [2·3-5·2]; p=0·0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers. Overall mortality was 3·9% (2·7-5·8) for TARGIT versus 5·3% (3·9-7·3) for EBRT (p=0·099). Wound-related complications were much the same between groups but grade 3 or 4 skin complications were significantly reduced with TARGIT (four of 1720 vs 13 of 1731, p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach should be considered as an option for eligible patients with breast cancer carefully selected as per the TARGIT-A trial protocol, as an alternative to postoperative EBRT. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.