Dataset Information

The Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer (QIRC) trial: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial in surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Two unfortunate outcomes for patients treated surgically for rectal cancer are placement of a permanent colostomy and local tumor recurrence. Total mesorectal excision is a new technique for rectal cancer surgery that can lead to improved patient outcomes. We describe a cluster randomized controlled trial that is testing if the above patient outcomes can be improved through a knowledge translation strategy called the Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer (QIRC) strategy. The strategy is designed to optimize the use of total mesorectal excision techniques.

Methods and design

Hospitals were randomized to the QIRC strategy (experimental group) versus normal practice environment (control group). Participating hospitals, and the respective surgeon group operating in them, are from Ontario, Canada and have an annual procedure volume for major rectal cancer resections of 15 or greater. Patients were eligible if they underwent major rectal surgery for a diagnosis of primary rectal cancer. The surgeon-directed QIRC interventions included a workshop, use of opinion leaders, operative demonstrations, a post-operative questionnaire, and, audit and feedback. For an operative demonstration participating surgeons invited a study team surgeon to assist them with a case of rectal cancer surgery. The intent was to demonstrate total mesorectal excision techniques. Control arm surgeons received no intervention. Sample size calculations were two-sided, considered the clustering of data at the hospital level, and were driven by requirements for the outcome local recurrence. To detect an improvement in local recurrence from 20% to 8% with confidence we required 16 hospitals and 672 patients - 8 hospitals and 336 patients in each arm. Outcomes data are collected via chart review for at least 30 months after surgery. Analyses will use an intention-to-treat principle and will consider the clustering of data. Data collection will be complete by the end of 2007.

Discussion

Lower rates of permanent colostomy and local tumour recurrence in the intervention arm would suggest the QIRC strategy is efficacious. The strategy may act as a template for efforts to improve surgical quality in other areas and will contribute to knowledge on influencing surgeon practice.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78363167.

SUBMITTER: Simunovic M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2262058 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer (QIRC) trial: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial in surgery.

Simunovic Marko M Goldsmith Charles C Thabane Lehana L McLeod Robin R Denardi Franco F Whelan Timothy J TJ Levine Mark N MN

BMC surgery 20080215

<h4>Background</h4>Two unfortunate outcomes for patients treated surgically for rectal cancer are placement of a permanent colostomy and local tumor recurrence. Total mesorectal excision is a new technique for rectal cancer surgery that can lead to improved patient outcomes. We describe a cluster randomized controlled trial that is testing if the above patient outcomes can be improved through a knowledge translation strategy called the Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer (QIRC) strategy. The str ...[more]

PMID: 18279521

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:After low anterior resection (LAR), up to 90% of patients develop anorectal dysfunction. Especially fecal incontinence has a major impact on the physical, psychological, social, and emotional functioning of the patient but also on the Dutch National Healthcare budget with more than €2000 spent per patient per year. No standardized treatment is available to help these patients. Common treatment nowadays is focused on symptom relief, consisting of lifestyle advices and pharmacotherapy with bulking agents or antidiarrheal medication. Another possibility is pelvic floor rehabilitation (PFR), which is one of the most important treatments for fecal incontinence in general, with success rates of 50-80%. No strong evidence is available for the use of PFR after LAR. This study aims to prove a beneficial effect of PFR on fecal incontinence, quality of life, and costs in rectal cancer patients after sphincter-saving surgery compared to standard treatment. METHODS:The FORCE trial is a multicenter, two-armed, randomized clinical trial. All patients that underwent LAR are recruited from the participating hospitals and randomized for either standard treatment or a standardized PFR program. A total of 128 patients should be randomized. Optimal blinding is not possible. Stratification will be done in variable blocks (gender and additional radiotherapy). The primary endpoint is the Wexner incontinence score; secondary endpoints are health-related and fecal-incontinence-related QoL and cost-effectiveness. Baseline measurements take place before randomization. The primary endpoint is measured 3 months after the start of the intervention, with a 1-year follow-up for sustainability research purposes. DISCUSSION:The results of this study may substantially improve postoperative care for patients with fecal incontinence or anorectal dysfunction after LAR. This section provides insight in the decisions that were made in the organization of this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Registration, NTR5469, registered on 03-09-2015. Protocol FORCE trial V18, 19-09-2019. Sponsor Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) consists of chemoradiation therapy (CRT) and surgery. Approximately 15% of patients show a pathological complete response (pCR). Increased pCR-rates can be achieved through dose escalation, thereby increasing the number patients eligible for organ-preservation to improve quality of life (QoL). A randomized comparison of 65 versus 50Gy with external-beam radiation alone has not yet been performed. This trial investigates pCR rate, clinical response, toxicity, QoL and (disease-free) survival in LARC patients treated with 65Gy (boost + chemoradiation) compared with 50Gy standard chemoradiation (sCRT). METHODS/DESIGN:This study follows the 'cohort multiple randomized controlled trial' (cmRCT) design: rectal cancer patients are included in a prospective cohort that registers clinical baseline, follow-up, survival and QoL data. At enrollment, patients are asked consent to offer them experimental interventions in the future. Eligible patients-histologically confirmed LARC (T3NxM0 <1 mm from mesorectal fascia, T4NxM0 or TxN2M0) located ?10 cm from the anorectal transition who provided consent for experimental intervention offers-form a subcohort (n = 120). From this subcohort, a random sample is offered the boost prior to sCRT (n = 60), which they may accept or refuse. Informed consent is signed only after acceptance of the boost. Non-selected patients in the subcohort (n = 60) undergo sCRT alone and are not notified that they participate in the control arm until the trial is completed. sCRT consists of 50Gy (25 × 2Gy) with concomitant capecitabine. The boost (without chemotherapy) is given prior to sCRT and consists of 15 Gy (5 × 3Gy) delivered to the gross tumor volume (GTV). The primary endpoint is pCR (TRG 1). Secondary endpoints include acute grade 3-4 toxicity, good pathologic response (TRG 1-2), clinical response, surgical complications, QoL and (disease-free) survival. Data is analyzed by intention to treat. DISCUSSION:The boost is delivered prior to sCRT so that GTV adjustment for tumor shrinkage during sCRT is not necessary. Small margins also aim to limit irradiation of healthy tissue. The cmRCT design provides opportunity to overcome common shortcomings of classic RCTs, such as slow recruitment, disappointment-bias in control arm patients and poor generalizability. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The Netherlands Trials Register NL46051.041.13. Registered 22 August 2013. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01951521 . Registered 18 September 2013.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer includes 5-6 weeks of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) followed by total mesorectal excision 6-8 weeks later. NACRT improves local disease control and surgical outcomes but also causes side effects including fatigue, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and physical deconditioning that may impede quality of life (QoL), treatment completion, treatment response, and long-term prognosis. Interventions to improve treatment outcomes and manage side effects that are safe, tolerable and low-cost are highly desirable. Exercise has been shown to improve some of these outcomes in other cancer patient groups but no study to date has examined the potential benefits (and harms) of exercise training during and after NACRT for rectal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN:The Exercise During and After Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Treatment (EXERT) trial is a single-center, prospective, two-armed, phase II randomized controlled trial designed to test the preliminary efficacy of exercise training in this clinical setting and to further evaluate its feasibility and safety. Participants will be 60 rectal cancer patients scheduled to receive long-course NACRT followed by total mesorectal excision. Participants will be randomly assigned to exercise training or usual care. Participants in the exercise training group will be asked to complete three supervised, high-intensity interval training sessions/week during NACRT and???150 min/week of unsupervised, moderate-to-vigorous-intensity, continuous exercise training after NACRT prior to surgery. Participants in the usual care group will be asked not to increase their exercise from baseline. Assessments will be completed pre NACRT, post NACRT, and pre surgery. The primary endpoint will be cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 peak) at the post-NACRT time point assessed by a graded exercise test. Secondary endpoints will include functional fitness assessed by the Senior's Fitness Test, QoL assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer, and symptom management assessed by the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Exploratory clinical endpoints will include treatment toxicities, treatment completion, treatment response, and surgical complications. DISCUSSION:If the preliminary findings of EXERT are positive, additional research will be warranted to confirm whether exercise is an innovative treatment to maintain QoL, manage side effects, and/or improve treatment outcomes in rectal cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03082495 . Registered on 9 February, 2017.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic-assisted simultaneous resection and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer and liver metastases.BackgroundOpen simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases is widely performed and the potential cure for eligible patients. However, the feasibility of robotic simultaneous resection of primary and secondary liver lesions has not been established as a treatment option for metastatic rectal cancer.Patients and methodsA single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted at a hospital in China. Enrolling patients were aged from 18 to 75 years and diagnosed with surgically resectable metastatic rectal cancer (distal extension to ≤15 cm from the anal margin). Patients selected for simultaneous resection were randomly assigned to have robotic or open surgery at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of complications within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints were bladder, sexual function, 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival.ResultsA total of 171 patients were enrolled in this trial with 86 in the robotic group and 85 in the open group. As a result, patients in the robotic group demonstrated fewer complications within 30 days after surgery than those in the open group (31.4% vs. 57.6%, P=0.014) and no mortality seen in either group. Patients in the robotic group had less blood loss (mean [SD], 125.5 [38.3] vs. 211.6 [68.7] mL; P<0·001), faster bowel function recovery (mean [SD], 63.7 [27.4] vs. 93.8 [33.5] hours) P<0·001) and shorter hospital stay (mean [SD], 8.0 [2.2] vs. 10.7 [5.4] days; P<0·001) compared with those in the open group. The robotic group had faster recovery of bladder and sexual function at 3 months after surgery than that of the open group. The 3-year disease-free survival rate (39.5% vs. 35.3%, P=0.739) and the 3-year overall survival rate (76.7% vs. 72.9%, P=0.712) were not statistically significant between the two groups.ConclusionsIn our randomized clinical trial, robotic simultaneous resection treatment of patients with rectal cancer and liver metastases resulted in fewer surgical complications, and faster recovery to those of open surgery. Oncological outcomes showed no significant difference between two groups.

Project description:BackgroundQuality improvement (QI) programs focused on mastery of content by individual staff members are the current standard to improve resident outcomes in nursing homes. However, complexity science suggests that learning is a social process that occurs within the context of relationships and interactions among individuals. Thus, QI programs will not result in optimal changes in staff behavior unless the context for social learning is present. Accordingly, we developed CONNECT, an intervention to foster systematic use of management practices, which we propose will enhance effectiveness of a nursing home Falls QI program by strengthening the staff-to-staff interactions necessary for clinical problem-solving about complex problems such as falls. The study aims are to compare the impact of the CONNECT intervention, plus a falls reduction QI intervention (CONNECT + FALLS), to the falls reduction QI intervention alone (FALLS), on fall-related process measures, fall rates, and staff interaction measures.Methods/designSixteen nursing homes will be randomized to one of two study arms, CONNECT + FALLS or FALLS alone. Subjects (staff and residents) are clustered within nursing homes because the intervention addresses social processes and thus must be delivered within the social context, rather than to individuals. Nursing homes randomized to CONNECT + FALLS will receive three months of CONNECT first, followed by three months of FALLS. Nursing homes randomized to FALLS alone receive three months of FALLs QI and are offered CONNECT after data collection is completed. Complexity science measures, which reflect staff perceptions of communication, safety climate, and care quality, will be collected from staff at baseline, three months after, and six months after baseline to evaluate immediate and sustained impacts. FALLS measures including quality indicators (process measures) and fall rates will be collected for the six months prior to baseline and the six months after the end of the intervention. Analysis will use a three-level mixed model.DiscussionBy focusing on improving local interactions, CONNECT is expected to maximize staff's ability to implement content learned in a falls QI program and integrate it into knowledge and action. Our previous pilot work shows that CONNECT is feasible, acceptable and appropriate.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00636675.

Project description:BackgroundDissemination is a critical facet of implementing quality improvement in organizations. As a field, addiction treatment has produced effective interventions but disseminated them slowly and reached only a fraction of people needing treatment. This study investigates four methods of disseminating quality improvement (QI) to addiction treatment programs in the U.S. It is, to our knowledge, the largest study of organizational change ever conducted in healthcare. The trial seeks to determine the most cost-effective method of disseminating quality improvement in addiction treatment.MethodsThe study is evaluating the costs and effectiveness of different QI approaches by randomizing 201 addiction-treatment programs to four interventions. Each intervention used a web-based learning kit plus monthly phone calls, coaching, face-to-face meetings, or the combination of all three. Effectiveness is defined as reducing waiting time (days between first contact and treatment), increasing program admissions, and increasing continuation in treatment. Opportunity costs will be estimated for the resources associated with providing the services.OutcomesThe study has three primary outcomes: waiting time, annual program admissions, and continuation in treatment. Secondary outcomes include: voluntary employee turnover, treatment completion, and operating margin. We are also seeking to understand the role of mediators, moderators, and other factors related to an organization's success in making changes.AnalysisWe are fitting a mixed-effect regression model to each program's average monthly waiting time and continuation rates (based on aggregated client records), including terms to isolate state and intervention effects. Admissions to treatment are aggregated to a yearly level to compensate for seasonality. We will order the interventions by cost to compare them pair-wise to the lowest cost intervention (monthly phone calls). All randomized sites with outcome data will be included in the analysis, following the intent-to-treat principle. Organizational covariates in the analysis include program size, management score, and state.DiscussionThe study offers seven recommendations for conducting a large-scale cluster-randomized trial: provide valuable services, have aims that are clear and important, seek powerful allies, understand the recruiting challenge, cultivate commitment, address turnover, and encourage rigor and flexibility.Trial registrationClinicalTrials. govNCT00934141.

Project description:BackgroundThe majority of surgical interventions are performed in day care and patients are discharged after the first critical postoperative period. At home, patients have limited options to contact healthcare providers in the hospital in case of severe pain and nausea. A smartphone application for patients to self-record pain and nausea when at home after day care surgery might improve patient's recovery. Currently patient experiences with smartphone applications are promising; however, we do not know whether remote monitoring with such an application also improves the patient's recovery. This study aims to evaluate the experienced quality of recovery after day care surgery between patients provided with the smartphone application for remote monitoring and patients receiving standard care without remote monitoring.MethodsThis non-blinded randomized controlled trial with mixed methods design will include 310 adult patients scheduled for day care surgery. The intervention group receives the smartphone application with text message function for remote monitoring that enables patients to record pain and nausea. An anaesthesia professional trained in empathetic communication, who will contact the patient in case of severe pain or nausea, performs daily monitoring. The control group receives standard care, with post-discharge verbal and paper instructions. The main study endpoint is the difference in perceived quality of recovery, measured with the QoR-15 questionnaire on the 7th day after day care surgery. Secondary endpoints are the overall score on the Quality of Recovery-15 at day 1, 4 and 7-post discharge, the perceived quality of hospital aftercare and experienced psychological effects of remote monitoring during postoperative recovery from day care surgery.DiscussionThis study will investigate if facilitating patients and healthcare professionals with a tool for accessible and empathetic communication might lead to an improved quality of the postoperative recovery period.Trial registrationThe 'Quality of recovery after day care surgery with app-controlled remote monitoring: a randomized controlled trial' is approved and registered on 23 February 2022 by Research Ethics Committees United with registration number R21.076/NL78144.100.21. The protocol NL78144.100.21, 'Quality of recovery after day care surgery with app-controlled remote monitoring: a randomized controlled trial', is registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov public website (registration date 16 February 2022; NCT05244772).

Dataset Information

The Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer (QIRC) trial: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial in surgery.

Background

Methods and design

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

The Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer (QIRC) trial: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial in surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets