Dataset Information

ISOlation Procedure vs. conventional procedure during Distal Pancreatectomy (ISOP-DP trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is an isolation procedure in pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic body/tail cancer. Connective tissues around the bifurcation of the celiac axis are dissected, followed by median-to-left retroperitoneal dissection. This procedure has the potential to isolate blood and lymphatic flow to the area of the pancreatic body/tail and the spleen to be excised. This is achieved by division of the inflow artery, transection of the pancreas, and then division of the outflow vein in the early phases of surgery. In cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the procedure has been shown to decrease intraoperative blood loss and increase R0 resection rate by complete clearance of the lymph nodes. This trial investigates whether the isolation procedure can prolong the survival of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who undergo distal pancreatosplenectomy (DPS) compared with those that undergo the conventional approach.

Methods/design

Patients with PDAC scheduled to undergo DPS are randomized before surgery to undergo either a conventional procedure (arm A) or to undergo the isolation procedure (arm B). In arm A, the pancreatic body, tail, and spleen are mobilized, followed by removal of the regional lymph nodes. The splenic vein is transected at the end of the procedure. The timing of division of the splenic artery (SA) is not restricted. In arm B, regional lymph nodes are dissected, then we transect the root of the SA, the pancreas, then the splenic vein. At the end of the procedure, the pancreatic body/tail and spleen are mobilized and removed. In total, 100 patients from multiple Japanese high-volume centers will be randomized. The primary endpoint is 2-year recurrence-free survival by intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative blood loss, R0 resection rate, and overall survival.

Discussion

If this trial shows that the isolation procedures can improve survival with a similar R0 rate and with a similar number of lymph node dissections to the conventional procedure, the isolation procedure is expected to become a standard procedure during DPS for PDAC. Conversely, if there were no significant differences in endpoints between the groups, it would demonstrate justification of either procedure from surgical and oncological points of view.

Trial registration

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000041381 . Registered on 10 August 2020. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04600063 . Registered on 22 October 2020.

SUBMITTER: Okada KI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8447574 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains has been common practice in abdominal operations including pancreatic surgery. The PANDRA trial showed that the omission of drains following pancreatic head resection was non-inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reinterventions and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. The aim of the present PANDRA II trial is to evaluate the clinical outcome with versus without prophylactic drain placement after distal pancreatectomy.MethodsThe PANDRA II trial is a mono-center, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial with two parallel study groups. In the control group at least one passive intra-abdominal drain is placed at the pancreatic resection margin. In the experimental group no drains are placed. The primary endpoint of this trial will be the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) measuring all postoperative complications within 90 days. Secondary endpoints are in-hospital mortality and morbidity, including the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula, chyle leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, reinterventions and reoperations, surgical site infection, and abdominal fascia dehiscence. Moreover, length of hospital stay, duration of intensive care unit stay, and the rate of readmission after discharge from hospital (up to day 90 after surgery) are assessed. We will need to analyze 252 patients to test the hypothesis that no drainage is non-inferior to drain placement in terms of the CCI (δ 7.5 points) in a one-sided t test with a one-sided level of significance of 2.5% and a power of 80%.DiscussionThe results of the PANDRA II trial will help to evaluate the effect of an omission of prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage on the rate of complications after open or minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00013763 . Registered on 6 March 2018.

Project description:BackgroundRecently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP.Methods/designDIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.DiscussionThe DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Project description:To compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).Magnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as "usual" or "difficult" by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.Two hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.Although the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.