Feasibility study of a clinically-integrated randomized trial of modifications to radical prostatectomy

Andrew J Vickers, Caroline Bennette, Karim Touijer, Jonathan Coleman, Vincent Laudone, Brett Carver, James A Eastham, Peter T Scardino, Andrew J Vickers, Caroline Bennette, Karim Touijer, Jonathan Coleman, Vincent Laudone, Brett Carver, James A Eastham, Peter T Scardino

Abstract

Background: Numerous technical modifications to radical prostatectomy have been proposed. Such modifications are likely to lead to only slight improvements in outcomes. Although small differences would be worthwhile, an appropriately powered randomized trial would need to be very large, and thus of doubtful feasibility given the expense, complexity and regulatory burden of contemporary clinical trials. We have proposed a novel methodology, the clinically-integrated randomized trial, which dramatically streamlines trial procedures in order to reduce the marginal cost of an additional patient towards zero. We aimed to determine the feasibility of implementing such a trial for radical prostatectomy.

Methods: Patients undergoing radical prostatectomy as initial treatment for prostate cancer were randomized in a factorial design to involvement of the fascia during placement of the anastomotic sutures, urethral irrigation, both or neither. Endpoint data were obtained from routine clinical documentation. Accrual and compliance rates were monitored to determine the feasibility of the trial.

Results: From a total of 260 eligible patients, 154 (59%) consented; 56 patients declined to participate, 20 were not approached on recommendation of the treating surgeon, and 30 were not approached for logistical reasons. Although recording by surgeons of the procedure used was incomplete (~80%), compliance with randomization was excellent when it was recorded, with only 6% of procedures inconsistent with allocation. Outcomes data was received from 71% of patients at one year. This improved to 83% as the trial progressed.

Conclusions: A clinically-integrated randomized trial was conducted at low cost, with excellent accrual, and acceptable compliance with treatment allocation and outcomes reporting. This demonstrates the feasibility of the methodology. Improved methods to ensure documentation of surgical procedures would be required before wider implementation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00928850.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of patient consent and randomization.

References

    1. Vickers A, Savage C, Bianco F, Mulhall J, Sandhu J, Guillonneau B, Cronin A, Scardino P. Cancer control and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy as markers of surgical quality: analysis of heterogeneity between surgeons at a single cancer center. Eur Urol. 2011;59(3):317–322. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.045.
    1. Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB, Kattan MW, Schrag D, Warren JL, Scardino PT. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1138–1144. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa011788.
    1. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, Klein EA, Reuther AM, Kattan MW, Pontes JE, Scardino PT. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(15):1171–1177. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm060.
    1. Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Klein EA, Eastham JA, Pontes JE, Scardino PT. Variations among experienced surgeons in cancer control after open radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;183(3):977–982. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.015.
    1. Kowalczyk KJ, Huang AC, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Yu HY, Ulmer WD, Kaplan JR, Patel S, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Stepwise Approach for Nerve Sparing Without Countertraction During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Technique and Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011.
    1. Beck S, Skarecky D, Osann K, Juarez R, Ahlering TE. Transverse Versus Vertical Camera Port Incision in Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Effect on Incisional Hernias and Cosmesis. Urology. 2011.
    1. Sasaki H, Miki J, Kimura T, Sanuki K, Miki K, Takahashi H, Egawa S. Lateral view dissection of the prostato-urethral junction to reduce positive apical margin in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2009;16(8):664–669. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02328.x.
    1. Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, Patel VR. Influence of modified posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter on early recovery of continence and anastomotic leakage rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):72–80. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.025.
    1. Lei Y, Alemozaffar M, Williams SB, Hevelone N, Lipsitz SR, Plaster BA, Amarasekera CA, Ulmer WD, Huang AC, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC. Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;59(2):235–243. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.043.
    1. Vickers AJ, Scardino PT. The clinically-integrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost. Trials. 2009;10:14. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-14.
    1. Vickers AJ. Do we want more cancer patients on clinical trials if so, what are the barriers to greater accrual. Trials. 2008;9:31. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-9-31.
    1. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000;356(9230):635–638. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02605-2.
    1. Vickers AJ, Salz T, Basch E, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Tighe F, Eastham J, Rosen RC. Electronic patient self-assessment and management (SAM): a novel framework for cancer survivorship. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:34. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-10-34.
    1. Berry DL, Blumenstein BA, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Fann JR, Austin-Seymour M, Bush N, Karras BT, Lober WB, McCorkle R. Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):1029–1035. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.3909.
    1. Cleeland CS, Wang XS, Shi Q, Mendoza TR, Wright SL, Berry MD, Malveaux D, Shah PK, Gning I, Hofstetter WL, Putnam JB Jr, Vaporciyan AA. Automated symptom alerts reduce postoperative symptom severity after cancer surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):994–1000. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.8315.
    1. Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials. 2004;1(4):368–376. doi: 10.1191/1740774504cn032oa.
    1. Fielding S, Maclennan G, Cook JA, Ramsay CR. A review of RCTs in four medical journals to assess the use of imputation to overcome missing data in quality of life outcomes. Trials. 2008;9:51. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-9-51.
    1. Elobeid MA, Padilla MA, McVie T, Thomas O, Brock DW, Musser B, Lu K, Coffey CS, Desmond RA, St-Onge MP Gadde KM, Heymsfield SB, Allison DB. Missing data in randomized clinical trials for weight loss: scope of the problem, state of the field, and performance of statistical methods. PloS one. 2009;4(8):e6624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006624.
    1. Claassen C, Kurian B, Trivedi MH, Grannemann BD, Tuli E, Pipes R, Preston AM, Flood A. Telephone-based assessments to minimize missing data in longitudinal depression trials: a project IMPACTS study report. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30(1):13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.08.001.
    1. Baron G, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. Violation of the intent-to-treat principle and rate of missing data in superiority trials assessing structural outcomes in rheumatic diseases. Arthritis and rheumatism. 2005;52(6):1858–1865. doi: 10.1002/art.21116.
    1. Bacchetti P. Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med. 2010;8:17. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-17.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera