Explore the vast range of titles available.

Adjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to halve the risk of biochemical progression for patients with high-risk disease after radical prostatectomy. Early salvage radiotherapy could result in similar biochemical control with lower treatment toxicity. We aimed to compare biochemical progression between patients given adjuvant radiotherapy and those given salvage radiotherapy. We did a phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial across 32 oncology centres in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years and had undergone a radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with pathological staging showing high-risk features defined as positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension, or seminal vesicle invasion; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of 0·10 ng/mL or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation technique via an internet-based, independently generated allocation to either adjuvant radiotherapy within 6 months of radical prostatectomy or early salvage radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. Allocation sequence was concealed from investigators and patients, but treatment assignment for individual randomisations was not masked. Patients were stratified by radiotherapy centre, preoperative PSA, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and seminal vesicle invasion status. Radiotherapy in both groups was 64 Gy in 32 fractions to the prostate bed without androgen deprivation therapy with real-time review of plan quality on all cases before treatment. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical progression. Salvage radiotherapy would be deemed non-inferior to adjuvant radiotherapy if freedom from biochemical progression at 5 years was within 10% of that for adjuvant radiotherapy with a hazard ratio (HR) for salvage radiotherapy versus adjuvant radiotherapy of 1·48. The primary analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00860652. Between March 27, 2009, and Dec 31, 2015, 333 patients were randomly assigned (166 to adjuvant radiotherapy; 167 to salvage radiotherapy). Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·3–7·5). An independent data monitoring committee recommended premature closure of enrolment because of unexpectedly low event rates. 84 (50%) patients in the salvage radiotherapy group had radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. 5-year freedom from biochemical progression was 86% (95% CI 81–92) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 87% (82–93) in the salvage radiotherapy group (stratified HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·65–1·90; pnon-inferiority=0·15). The grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity rate was lower in the salvage radiotherapy group (90 [54%] of 167) than in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (116 [70%] of 166). The grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity rate was similar between the salvage radiotherapy group (16 [10%]) and the adjuvant radiotherapy group (24 [14%]). Salvage radiotherapy did not meet trial specified criteria for non-inferiority. However, these data support the use of salvage radiotherapy as it results in similar biochemical control to adjuvant radiotherapy, spares around half of men from pelvic radiation, and is associated with significantly lower genitourinary toxicity. New Zealand Health Research Council, Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Council NSW, Auckland Hospital Charitable Trust, Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Seed Funding, Cancer Research Trust New Zealand, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Cancer Institute NSW, Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia, and Cancer Australia.

It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We aimed to prospectively plan a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these radiotherapy approaches. We used a prospective framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), starting the review process while eligible trials were ongoing. RCTs were eligible if they aimed to compare immediate adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy, following radical prostatectomy in men (age ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk or high-risk, localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We searched trial registers and conference proceedings until July 8, 2020, to identify eligible RCTs. By establishing the ARTISTIC collaboration with relevant trialists, we were able to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge, and we developed and registered a protocol with PROSPERO before knowledge of the trial results (CRD42019132669). We used a harmonised definition of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochemical progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥0·4 ng/mL and rising after completion of any postoperative radiotherapy), clinical or radiological progression, initiation of a non-trial treatment, death from prostate cancer, or a PSA level of at least 2·0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation. We predicted when we would have sufficient power to assess whether adjuvant radiotherapy was superior to early salvage radiotherapy. Investigators supplied results for event-free survival, both overall and within predefined patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of radiotherapy timing on event-free survival and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis. We identified three eligible trials and were able to obtain updated results for event-free survival for 2153 patients recruited between November, 2007, and December, 2016. Median follow-up ranged from 60 months to 78 months, with a maximum follow-up of 132 months. 1075 patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant radiotherapy and 1078 to a policy of early salvage radiotherapy, of whom 421 (39·1%) had commenced treatment at the time of analysis. Patient characteristics were balanced within trials and overall. Median age was similar between trials at 64 or 65 years (with IQRs ranging from 59 to 68 years) across the three trials and most patients (1671 [77·6%]) had a Gleason score of 7. All trials were assessed as having low risk of bias. Based on 270 events, the meta-analysis showed no evidence that event-free survival was improved with adjuvant radiotherapy compared with early salvage radiotherapy (HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·75–1·21; p=0·70), with only a 1 percentage point (95% CI −2 to 3) change in 5-year event-free survival (89% vs 88%). Results were consistent across trials (heterogeneity p=0·18; I2=42%). This collaborative and prospectively designed systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that adjuvant radiotherapy does not improve event-free survival in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Until data on long-term outcomes are available, early salvage treatment would seem the preferable treatment policy as it offers the opportunity to spare many men radiotherapy and its associated side-effects. UK Medical Research Council.

Purpose Pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer has been associated with improved local control, reduced distant disease and a survival advantage when compared with non-complete responders. Approximately 10–25 % of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer achieve pCR; however, predictors for its occurrence are inadequately defined. This study aimed to identify clinical and tumour factors that predict pCR in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Methods Consecutive rectal cancer patients diagnosed and treated in the Auckland region between 1 January 2002 and 1 February 2013 were retrospectively identified. Cases were stratified by the occurrence of pCR or non-pCR. Predictive capacity of several patient, tumour and treatment-related variables were then assessed by univariate and regression analyses. Results Two hundred ninety-seven patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, of whom 34 (11.4 %) achieved pCR. There were no significant differences in age, gender, ethnicity, BMI, pretreatment clinical T or N stage, tumour distance from the anal verge, tumour differentiation, chemoradiotherapy regimen and time interval to surgery between the pCR and non-pCR groups. Univariate analysis identified pretreatment serum CEA levels, a reduction in pre- to post-treatment serum CEA and smaller tumours as significant correlates of pCR. Logistic regression analysis found smaller tumour size and pretreatment clinical N stage as independent clinical predictors for achieving pCR. Conclusions Smaller tumour size and pretreatment clinical N stage were independent clinical predictors for achieving pCR. Prospective analysis is recommended for more rigorous risk factor assessment.

Summarises the priorities for treatment, research and policy for rectal cancer services in NZ identified during the Aug 2013 National Rectal Cancer Summit convened to discuss management of rectal cancer in the NZ context, to highlight controversies and to discuss domestic priorities for the future. Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human–AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes. The CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI extensions improve the transparency of clinical trial design and trial protocol reporting for artificial intelligence interventions.

The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human–AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial. The CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI extensions improve the transparency of clinical trial design and trial protocol reporting for artificial intelligence interventions.

AbstractThe CONSORT 2010 (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomised trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency when evaluating new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes.The CONSORT-AI extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI. Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process, involving a literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed on in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants).The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items, which were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions, that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and providing analysis of error cases.CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer-reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

AbstractThe SPIRIT 2013 (The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting, by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there is a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes.The SPIRIT-AI extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI. Both guidelines were developed using a staged consensus process, involving a literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted on by an international multi-stakeholder group in a 2-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed on in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants).The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items, which were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations around the handling of input and output data, the human-AI interaction and analysis of error cases.SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer-reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.

Functional capacity is an important component of risk assessment for major surgery. Doctors' clinical subjective assessment of patients' functional capacity has uncertain accuracy. We did a study to compare preoperative subjective assessment with alternative markers of fitness (cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPET], scores on the Duke Activity Status Index [DASI] questionnaire, and serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT pro-BNP] concentrations) for predicting death or complications after major elective non-cardiac surgery. We did a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study at 25 hospitals: five in Canada, seven in the UK, ten in Australia, and three in New Zealand. We recruited adults aged at least 40 years who were scheduled for major non-cardiac surgery and deemed to have one or more risk factors for cardiac complications (eg, a history of heart failure, stroke, or diabetes) or coronary artery disease. Functional capacity was subjectively assessed in units of metabolic equivalents of tasks by the responsible anaesthesiologists in the preoperative assessment clinic, graded as poor (<4), moderate (4–10), or good (>10). All participants also completed the DASI questionnaire, underwent CPET to measure peak oxygen consumption, and had blood tests for measurement of NT pro-BNP concentrations. After surgery, patients had daily electrocardiograms and blood tests to measure troponin and creatinine concentrations until the third postoperative day or hospital discharge. The primary outcome was death or myocardial infarction within 30 days after surgery, assessed in all participants who underwent both CPET and surgery. Prognostic accuracy was assessed using logistic regression, receiver-operating-characteristic curves, and net risk reclassification. Between March 1, 2013, and March 25, 2016, we included 1401 patients in the study. 28 (2%) of 1401 patients died or had a myocardial infarction within 30 days of surgery. Subjective assessment had 19·2% sensitivity (95% CI 14·2–25) and 94·7% specificity (93·2–95·9) for identifying the inability to attain four metabolic equivalents during CPET. Only DASI scores were associated with predicting the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·83–0·99; p=0·03). Subjectively assessed functional capacity should not be used for preoperative risk evaluation. Clinicians could instead consider a measure such as DASI for cardiac risk assessment. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science, UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, UK Clinical Research Collaboration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, and Monash University.

To describe retinal and choroidal findings in different stages of acute posterior multifocal placoid pigment epitheliopathy (APMPPE). Retrospective, noncomparative case series studied by fundus biomicroscopy, fundus autofluorescence (FAF), fluorescein angiography (FA), indocyanine green angiography (ICGA), spectral-domain optical coherence tomographic (SD-OCT), and swept-source OCT angiography (SS-OCTA). Six eyes of three patients with bilateral APMPPE were included. FAF showed multifocal, branched patches of hyperautofluorescence with areas of hypoautofluorescence; FA disclosed early hypofluorescence, with late-phase hyperfluorescence; ICGA showed early and late-phase hypofluorescence. SD-OCT imaging revealed bilateral retinal thinning, external limiting membrane (ELM) disruption, and severe alteration of the photoreceptor-retinal pigment epithelium complex. SS-OCTA showed widespread multiple dark spots in the choriocapillaris in Cases 1 and 2. Rarefaction and voids in the vascular texture were also detected in the deep plexus, unlike in Case 3, where the lesions were smaller and earlier, suggesting that retina vasculature may be affected after the choriocapillaris obstruction. APMPPE may result from a distinct focal ischemia in the choriocapillaris, and OCTA allowed the authors to localize exactly all the placoid lesions and monitor the areas of absent fluid signal. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019;50:428-436.].