Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Lung metastasectomy in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without good evidence of survival or palliative benefit. We aimed to test its effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods Multidisciplinary teams in 13 hospitals recruited participants with potentially resectable lung metastases to a multicentre, two-arm RCT comparing active monitoring with or without metastasectomy. Other local or systemic treatments were decided by the local team. Randomisation was remote and stratified by site with minimisation for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, the number of metastases, and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The central Trial Management Group were blind to patient allocation until completion of the analysis. Analysis was on intention to treat with a margin for non-inferiority of 10%. Results Between December 2010 and December 2016, 65 participants were randomised. Characteristics were well-matched in the two arms and similar to those in reported studies: age 35 to 86 years (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 74); primary resection IQR 16 to 35 months previously; stage at resection T1, 2 or 3 in 3, 8 and 46; N1 or N2 in 31 and 26; unknown in 8. Lung metastases 1 to 5 (median 2); 16/65 had previous liver metastases; carcinoembryonic antigen normal in 55/65. There were no other interventions in the first 6 months, no crossovers from control to treatment, and no treatment-related deaths or major adverse events. The Hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing metastasectomy with control, was 0.82 (95%CI 0.43, 1.56). Conclusions Because of poor and worsening recruitment, the study was stopped. The small number of participants in the trial ( N  = 65) precludes a conclusive answer to the research question given the large overlap in the confidence intervals in the proportions still alive at all time points. A widely held belief is that the 5-year absolute survival benefit with metastasectomy is about 35%: 40% after metastasectomy compared to < 5% in controls. The estimated survival in this study was 38% (23–62%) for metastasectomy patients and 29% (16–52%) in the well-matched controls. That is the new and important finding of this RCT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01106261 . Registered on 19 April 2010

IntroductionBladder cancer (BC) is a common malignancy and one of the most expensive to manage. Radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymphadenectomy is a gold standard treatment for high-risk BC. Reductions in morbidity and mortality from RC may be achieved through robot-assisted RC (RARC). Prospective comparisons between open RC (ORC) and RARC have been limited by sample size, use of extracorporeal reconstruction and use of outcomes important for ORC. Conversely, while RARC is gaining in popularity, there is little evidence to suggest it is superior to ORC. We are undertaking a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare RARC with intracorporeal reconstruction (iRARC) and ORC using multimodal outcomes to explore qualitative and quantitative recovery after surgery.Methods and analysisiROC is a multicentre prospective RCT in English National Health Service (NHS) cancer centres. We will randomise 320 patients undergoing RC to either iRARC or ORC. Treatment allocation will occur after trial entry and consent. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within the first 90 days from surgery. Secondary outcomes will measure functional recovery (activity trackers, chair-to-stand tests and health related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires), morbidity (complications and readmissions), cost-effectiveness (using EuroQol-5 Domain-5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) and unit costs) and surgeon fatigue. Patients will be analysed according to intention to treat. The primary outcome will be transformed and analysed using regression. All statistical assumptions will be investigated. Secondary outcomes will be analysed using appropriate regression methods. An internal feasibility study of the first 30 patients will evaluate recruitment rates, acceptance of randomised treatment choice, compliance outcome collection and to revise our sample size.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical approval (REC reference 16/NE/0418). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, funders and the NHS through peer-reviewed publications, social media and patient support groups.Trial registration numbersISRCTN13680280 and NCT03049410.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has posed daunting challenges when conducting clinical research. Adopting new technologies such as remote electronic consent (e-Consent) can help overcome them. However, guidelines for e-Consent implementation in ongoing clinical trials are currently lacking. The NeuroSAFE PROOF trial is a randomized clinical trial evaluating the role of frozen section analysis during RARP for prostate cancer. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, recruitment was halted, and a remote e-Consent solution was designed. The aim of this paper is to describe the process of implementation, impact on recruitment rate, and patients’ experience using e-Consent. Methods A substantial amendment of the protocol granted the creation of a remote e-Consent framework based on the REDCap environment, following the structure and content of the already approved paper consent form. Although e-Consent obviated the need for in-person meeting, there was nonetheless counselling sessions performed interactively online. This new pathway offered continuous support to patients through remote consultations. The whole process was judged to be compliant with regulatory requirements before implementation. Results Before the first recruitment suspension, NeuroSAFE PROOF was recruiting an average of 9 patients per month. After e-Consent implementation, 63 new patients (4/month) have been enrolled despite a second lockdown, none of whom would have been recruited using the old methods given restrictions on face-to-face consultations. Patients have given positive feedback on the use of the platform. Limited troubleshooting has been required after implementation. Conclusion Remote e-Consent-based recruitment was critical for the continuation of the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial during the COVID-19 pandemic. The described pathway complies with ethical and regulatory guidelines for informed consent, while minimizing face-to-face interactions that increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. This guide will help researchers integrate e-Consent to ongoing or planned clinical trials while uncertainty about the course of the pandemic continues. Trial registration NeuroSAFE PROOF trial NCT03317990 . Registered on 23 October 2017. Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978.

Background Trocar-site hernia is an underappreciated condition with estimates of approximately 25% at 2 years follow-up. Duramesh™ has emerged as a novel product with potential benefits for incisional hernia prevention. The aim of this trial is to establish if Duramesh is superior to conventional suture for prevention of periumbilical trocar-site hernia following laparoscopic surgery. Methods The TROCAR trial is a prospective single-centre, parallel arm, double-blind randomised controlled trial conducted in the United Kingdom. A total of 250 randomised participants (1:1 ratio) will be allocated to receive either Duramesh or conventional suture (J-vicryl or J-PDS). The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of sonographically detected periumbilical trocar-site hernia at 2 years of the index operation. Secondary outcomes are 90-day surgical site occurrence (SSO), 90-day surgical site infection (SSI), 90-day rate of reoperation, 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and quality of life at 3 months, 1 year and 2 years measured using a modified EuraHS-QoL score and modified Carolinas Comfort Scale. Conclusion TROCAR will provide level 1 evidence on trocar-site hernia prevention in both the emergency and elective settings. Trial registration Registration number ISRCTN14473961 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14473961 ). Registered on 14th April 2025.

IntroductionChildren having surgery, and their parents, commonly have anxiety in the preoperative period, and this may impact longer-term health and quality of life. Psychological preparation can be expensive and time-consuming, and the type and effectiveness of preparatory interventions are variable. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a preoperative smartphone psychological preparation application with virtual reality (VR) capability (the ‘Little Journey app’ (LJ)), at reducing anxiety and its sequelae in children and their carers.Methods and analysisMulticentre, assessor-blinded, two-armed, parallel group, RCT in children aged between 3 and 12 years, undergoing ambulatory surgery and receiving their first general anaesthetic. Randomisation is one-to-one between an intervention and a control arm. Participants in the intervention arm are provided with access to the LJ app and a low-cost cardboard VR headset (to be used with a smartphone) to use in the weeks leading up to their operation. Children in the control arm receive the same VR headset and suggestions of unrelated VR games to play, but no access to the LJ app. To improve accessibility, smart devices are provided to children whose families do not have a smart phone, and the app content has been translated from English into multiple languages. Both groups receive standard perioperative care at the hospital where they are having treatment. The primary outcome measure is the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale-Short Form applied by independent blinded observers, immediately before induction of general anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes include process measures, psychological and socioeconomic outcomes for both children and parents/carers. The planned sample size was 304 participants, including an anticipated 15% attrition rate. An interim analysis was conducted when the trial was temporarily paused because of the COVID-19 pandemic, at which point 119 participants had been recruited. The trial steering committee and data monitoring committee recommended continuation of the trial, but the sample size was increased to 596 to account for differences between the previously anticipated and actual outcomes of recruited participants.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by Surrey Borders—Research Ethics Committee 251219, and all participating sites were in England. Results will be presented in academic manuscripts and presentations and summarised for diverse audiences (including clinicians and patients/public) in podcasts, infographics and other multimedia formats.Trial registration number NCT03797716.

IntroductionTreatment of the node negative contralateral neck in oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) remains debated, with no clear consensus. Prophylactic contralateral neck treatment (either surgically or via irradiation) is generally recommended when the estimated risk of occult nodal metastasis is >20%. Unfortunately, patients undergoing bilateral neck treatment often require long-term supportive care for swallowing dysfunction. Reducing the impact of treatment on long-term quality of life is key in patients with OPC who have a good prognosis and tend to be young and fit at presentation. Lymphatic mapping and the use of free-hand single photon emission CT (fhSPECT) combined with sentinel lymph node biopsy is a novel approach to address this clinical need. The Lymphatic mapping Of Oropharyngeal Cancer trial aims to (a) validate a lymphatic mapping protocol in OPC using new technology (fhSPECT) with radiotracers and (b) establish lymphatic drainage patterns and the occult metastatic rate in the contralateral neck in OPC.Methods and analysisThe design is a prospective multicentre cohort trial to understand the lymphatic drainage pattern in 150 patients with OPC and unilateral neck metastases. The trial has two phases: (1) imaging phase (n=75)—aim: develop an imaging protocol to establish the lymphatic drainage pattern in a population of patients with proven unilateral neck metastasis from OPC. The intervention will involve peritumoural injection of radiotracer followed by fhSPECT scan under general anaesthesia (GA) (at time of examination under anaesthetic). A SPECT/CT scan (gold standard for lymphatic mapping) will be carried out subsequently as a comparator. The primary outcome is the rate of contralateral drainage. Secondary outcome is the accuracy of fhSPECT versus SPECT/CT. The number of contralateral nodes on SPECT/CT will be used as the denominator in calculating the sensitivity of fhSPECT in independently verified images. fhSPECT should achieve sensitivity >94%. A minimum number of 20/75 patients will be required to demonstrate contralateral drainage to proceed to the surgical stage. An imaging substudy (n=20) aims to develop a secondary imaging protocol in the event of <94% sensitivity of intraoperative fhSPECT. To investigate the sensitivity of outpatient imaging (single injection of radiotracer and SPECT/CT) compared with gold standard (SPECT/CT from initial imaging phase) and the acceptability of outpatient injection compared with under GA. Twenty patients from the imaging phase with easily accessible tumours will be invited to undergo a second imaging; (2) Surgical phase (n=75)—aim: demonstrate the utility of surgically staging the contralateral neck using sentinel node biopsy (SNB). The primary outcome of this surgical phase is the occult metastatic rate of contralateral nodes (positive SNB). The contralateral drainage rate will be identified during the imaging phase, with an expected SNB positive rate of excised nodes ranging from 25% to 40%.Ethics and disseminationThe outcome of this trial will provide a validated protocol and evidence to inform the design of future research in which management of the contralateral neck is based on surgical staging. Ethical approval was granted by the Yorkshire & The Humber-South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 20/YH/0111). Results from the trial will be presented to the scientific community at appropriate meetings and international journals. Patients and the public will be informed via patient groups, cancer charities and social media/press releases.Trial registration numberNCT04498221.

Background Robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a first-line curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are common associated adverse side effects that can negatively impact patients’ quality of life. Preserving the lateral neurovascular bundles (NS) during RARP improves functional outcomes. However, selecting men for NS may be difficult when there is concern about incurring in positive surgical margin (PSM) which in turn risks adverse oncological outcomes. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section examination of the neurovascular structure adjacent prostate margin) can provide real-time pathological consult to promote optimal NS whilst avoiding PSM. Methods NeuroSAFE PROOF is a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which men are randomly allocated 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RARP or standard RARP. Men electing for RARP as primary treatment, who are continent and have good baseline erectile function (EF), defined by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score > 21, are eligible. NS in the intervention arm is guided by the NeuroSAFE technique. NS in the standard arm is based on standard of care, i.e. a pre-operative image-based planning meeting, patient-specific clinical information, and digital rectal examination. The primary outcome is assessment of EF at 12 months. The primary endpoint is the proportion of men who achieve IIEF-5 score ≥ 21. A sample size of 404 was calculated to give a power of 90% to detect a difference of 14% between groups based on a feasibility study. Oncological outcomes are continuously monitored by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. Key secondary outcomes include urinary continence at 3 months assessed by the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire, rate of biochemical recurrence, EF recovery at 24 months, and difference in quality of life. Discussion NeuroSAFE PROOF is the first RCT of intra-operative frozen section during radical prostatectomy in the world. It is properly powered to evaluate a difference in the recovery of EF for men undergoing RARP assessed by patient-reported outcome measures. It will provide evidence to guide the use of the NeuroSAFE technique around the world. Trial registration NCT03317990 (23 October 2017). Regional Ethics Committee; reference 17/LO/1978.

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).

To determine whether risk adapted intraoperative radiotherapy, delivered as a single dose during lumpectomy, can effectively replace postoperative whole breast external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer. Prospective, open label, randomised controlled clinical trial. 32 centres in 10 countries in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada. 2298 women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma up to 3.5 cm in size, cN0-N1, eligible for breast conservation and randomised before lumpectomy (1:1 ratio, blocks stratified by centre) to either risk adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Random allocation was to the EBRT arm, which consisted of a standard daily fractionated course (three to six weeks) of whole breast radiotherapy, or the TARGIT-IORT arm. TARGIT-IORT was given immediately after lumpectomy under the same anaesthetic and was the only radiotherapy for most patients (around 80%). TARGIT-IORT was supplemented by EBRT when postoperative histopathology found unsuspected higher risk factors (around 20% of patients). Non-inferiority with a margin of 2.5% for the absolute difference between the five year local recurrence rates of the two arms, and long term survival outcomes. Between 24 March 2000 and 25 June 2012, 1140 patients were randomised to TARGIT-IORT and 1158 to EBRT. TARGIT-IORT was non-inferior to EBRT: the local recurrence risk at five year complete follow-up was 2.11% for TARGIT-IORT compared with 0.95% for EBRT (difference 1.16%, 90% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.99). In the first five years, 13 additional local recurrences were reported (24/1140 11/1158) but 14 fewer deaths (42/1140 56/1158) for TARGIT-IORT compared with EBRT. With long term follow-up (median 8.6 years, maximum 18.90 years, interquartile range 7.0-10.6) no statistically significant difference was found for local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.41, P=0.28), mastectomy-free survival (0.96, 0.78 to 1.19, P=0.74), distant disease-free survival (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12, P=0.30), overall survival (0.82, 0.63 to 1.05, P=0.13), and breast cancer mortality (1.12, 0.78 to 1.60, P=0.54). Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (0.59, 0.40 to 0.86, P=0.005). For patients with early breast cancer who met our trial selection criteria, risk adapted immediate single dose TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was an effective alternative to EBRT, with comparable long term efficacy for cancer control and lower non-breast cancer mortality. TARGIT-IORT should be discussed with eligible patients when breast conserving surgery is planned. ISRCTN34086741, NCT00983684.