Dataset Information

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of SPARE - a randomised feasibility study of selective bladder preservation versus radical cystectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To test the feasibility of a randomised trial in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and compare outcomes in patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (RC) or selective bladder preservation (SBP), where definitive treatment [RC or radiotherapy (RT)] is determined by response to chemotherapy.

Patients and methods

SPARE is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing RC and SBP in patients with MIBC staged T2-3 N0 M0, fit for both treatment strategies and receiving three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomised between RC and SBP before a cystoscopy after cycle three of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with ?T1 residual tumour received a fourth cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in both groups, followed by radical RT in the SBP group and RC in in the RC group; non-responders in both groups proceeded immediately to RC following cycle three. Feasibility study primary endpoints were accrual rate and compliance with assigned treatment strategy. The phase III trial was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of SBP in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients whose tumours responded to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported quality of life, clinician assessed toxicity, loco-regional recurrence-free survival, and rate of salvage RC after SBP.

Results

Trial recruitment was challenging and below the predefined target with 45 patients recruited in 30 months (25 RC; 20 SBP). Non-compliance with assigned treatment strategy was frequent, six of the 25 patients (24%) randomised to RC received RT. Long-term bladder preservation rate was 11/15 (73%) in those who received RT per protocol. OS survival was not significantly different between groups.

Conclusions

Randomising patients with MIBC between RC and SBP based on response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not feasible in the UK health system. Strong clinician and patient preferences for treatments impacted willingness to undergo randomisation and acceptance of treatment allocation. Due to the few participants, firm conclusions about disease and toxicity outcomes cannot be drawn.

SUBMITTER: Huddart RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5655733 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of SPARE - a randomised feasibility study of selective bladder preservation versus radical cystectomy.

Huddart Robert A RA Birtle Alison A Maynard Lauren L Beresford Mark M Blazeby Jane J Donovan Jenny J Kelly John D JD Kirkbank Tony T McLaren Duncan B DB Mead Graham G Moynihan Clare C Persad Raj R Scrase Christopher C Lewis Rebecca R Hall Emma E

BJU international 20170529 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To test the feasibility of a randomised trial in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and compare outcomes in patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (RC) or selective bladder preservation (SBP), where definitive treatment [RC or radiotherapy (RT)] is determined by response to chemotherapy.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>SPARE is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing RC and SBP in patients with MIBC staged T2-3 N0 M0, fit for bo ...[more]

PMID: 28453896

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Bladder 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 ANALYSIS: iROC 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 DISSEMINATION:The 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 NUMBERS:ISRCTN13680280 and NCT03049410.

Project description:BackgroundRadical cystectomy (RC) with urinary diversion is the recommended treatment for selected cases of non-metastatic high-risk non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder cancer. It remains unknown whether robot-assisted laparoscopic cystectomy (RARC) offers any advantage in terms of safety compared to open cystectomy (ORC) in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) setup. Blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) between RARC versus ORC have never been conducted in cystectomy patients. We will investigate the feasibility of conducting a double-blinded RCT comparing ORC with RARC with intra-corporal ileal conduit (iRARC) in an ERAS setup.MethodsThis is a single-centre, double-blinded, randomised (1:1) clinical feasibility study for patients with non-metastatic high-risk non-muscle-invasive or muscle-invasive bladder cancer scheduled for cystectomy. All participants are recruited from Rigshospitalet, Denmark. The planned sample size is 50 participants to investigate whether blinding of the surgical technique is feasible. Participants and postoperative caring physicians and nurses are blinded using a pre-study designed abdominal dressing and blinding of the patient's electronic health record. Study endpoints are assessed 90 days postoperatively. The primary aim is to study the frequency and pattern of unplanned unblinding after surgery and the number of participants who cannot guess the surgical technique at the day of discharge. Eleven secondary endpoints are assessed: length of stay, days alive and out of hospital, in-hospital complication rate, 30-day complication rate, 90-day complication rate, readmission rate, quality of life, blood loss, pain, rate of moderate/severe post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) complications, and delirium. Participants are managed in an ERAS setup in both arms of the trial.DiscussionWe report on the design and objectives of a novel experimental feasibility study investigating whether blinding of the surgical technique in cystectomy patients is possible. This information is essential for the design of future blinded trials comparing ORC to RARC. There is a continued need to compare RARC and ORC in terms of both efficacy, safety, and oncological outcomes. Estimated end of study is March 2021.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03977831. Registered on the 6th of June 2019.

Project description:IntroductionHigh-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease that can be difficult to predict. While around 25% of cancers progress to invasion and metastases, the remaining majority of tumours remain within the bladder. It is uncertain whether patients with HRNMIBC are better treated with intravesical maintenance BCG (mBCG) immunotherapy or primary radical cystectomy (RC). A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare these two different treatments but may be difficult to recruit to and has not been attempted to date. Before undertaking such an RCT, it is important to understand whether such a comparison is possible and how best to achieve it.Methods and analysisBRAVO is a multi-centre, parallel-group, mixed-methods, individually randomised, controlled, feasibility study for patients with HRNMIBC. Participants will be randomised to receive either mBCG immunotherapy or RC. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of performing the definitive phase III trial via estimation of eligibility and recruitment rates, assessing uptake of allocated treatment and compliance with mBCG, determining quality-of-life questionnaire completion rates and exploring reasons expressed by patients for declining recruitment into the study. We aim to recruit 60 participants from six centres in the UK. Surgical trials with disparate treatment options find recruitment challenging from both the patient and clinician perspective. By building on the experiences of other similar trials through implementing a comprehensive training package aimed at clinicians to address these challenges (qualitative substudy), we hope that we can demonstrate that a phase III trial is feasible.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical approval (16/YH/0268). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, the funders and the National Health Service through traditional publishing and social media.Trial registration numberISRCTN12509361; Pre results.

Project description:ImportanceThe value to payers of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) when compared with open radical cystectomy (ORC) for patients with bladder cancer is unclear.ObjectivesTo compare the cost-effectiveness of iRARC with that of ORC.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used individual patient data from a randomized clinical trial at 9 surgical centers in the United Kingdom. Patients with nonmetastatic bladder cancer were recruited from March 20, 2017, to January 29, 2020. The analysis used a health service perspective and a 90-day time horizon, with supplementary analyses exploring patient benefits up to 1 year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Data were analyzed from January 13, 2022, to March 10, 2023.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive either iRARC (n = 169) or ORC (n = 169).Main outcomes and measuresCosts of surgery were calculated using surgery timings and equipment costs, with other hospital data based on counts of activity. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated from European Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level instrument responses. Prespecified subgroup analyses were undertaken based on patient characteristics and type of diversion.ResultsA total of 305 patients with available outcome data were included in the analysis, with a mean (SD) age of 68.3 (8.1) years, and of whom 241 (79.0%) were men. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy was associated with statistically significant reductions in admissions to intensive therapy (6.35% [95% CI, 0.42%-12.28%]), and readmissions to hospital (14.56% [95% CI, 5.00%-24.11%]), but increases in theater time (31.35 [95% CI, 13.67-49.02] minutes). The additional cost of iRARC per patient was £1124 (95% CI, -£576 to £2824 [US $1622 (95% CI, -$831 to $4075)]) with an associated gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.01124 (95% CI, 0.00391-0.01857). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £100 008 (US $144 312) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy had a much higher probability of being cost-effective for subgroups defined by age, tumor stage, and performance status.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation of surgery for patients with bladder cancer, iRARC reduced short-term morbidity and some associated costs. While the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio was in excess of thresholds used by many publicly funded health systems, patient subgroups were identified for which iRARC had a high probability of being cost-effective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03049410.

Dataset Information

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of SPARE - a randomised feasibility study of selective bladder preservation versus radical cystectomy.

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of SPARE - a randomised feasibility study of selective bladder preservation versus radical cystectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets