What have we learned in the process of setting up and running the PulMiCC (Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer) randomised controlled trial?

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
F. Fiorentino, M. Milošević, T. Treasure
{"title":"What have we learned in the process of setting up and running the PulMiCC (Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer) randomised controlled trial?","authors":"F. Fiorentino, M. Milošević, T. Treasure","doi":"10.21037/VATS-2020-LM-08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": The majority of lung metastasectomy operations are for colorectal cancer (CRC). The practice is highly selective. Of patients who have had a potentially curative resection, about 2–3% subsequently have a lung metastasectomy. The motive for operation is to cure the patient by removing the only evident remaining cancer. We review the methods used to investigate the evidence on which this practice is based, going from review of published observational cohort studies, through a citation network to a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The non-inferiority RCT Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) compared survival, quality of life, and health utility in 46 patients randomised to metastasectomy and 47 control patients. The two arms were well balanced for the known prognostic characteristics: the number of metastases, carcinoembryonic antigen levels, previous liver metastasectomy, cancer stage, and the interval since primary resection. Median survival was similar in the two arms: 3.5 years after metastasectomy and 3.8 years among controls and hazard ratio for death within five years of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56–1.56). There were 12 five-year survivors after metastasectomy and 11 among controls. The size of the trial does not exclude the possibility of occasional long-term survivors in whom metastasectomy appears to have removed the only residue of cancer, as has been observed anecdotally. As might be expected, after metastasectomy there was a decline in lung function as measured by % predicted FEV1. There were also more lung symptoms among the patient reported outcomes. The decline in self-reported health state was similar in the two arms. The generally assumed near zero five-year survival without metastasectomy was not found in PulMiCC or in the control groups of two other randomised studies, CLOCC and SABRE-COMET. Patients, and those treating for them, should be aware of this new information in reaching a decision about lung metastasectomy.","PeriodicalId":42086,"journal":{"name":"Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/VATS-2020-LM-08","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: The majority of lung metastasectomy operations are for colorectal cancer (CRC). The practice is highly selective. Of patients who have had a potentially curative resection, about 2–3% subsequently have a lung metastasectomy. The motive for operation is to cure the patient by removing the only evident remaining cancer. We review the methods used to investigate the evidence on which this practice is based, going from review of published observational cohort studies, through a citation network to a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The non-inferiority RCT Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) compared survival, quality of life, and health utility in 46 patients randomised to metastasectomy and 47 control patients. The two arms were well balanced for the known prognostic characteristics: the number of metastases, carcinoembryonic antigen levels, previous liver metastasectomy, cancer stage, and the interval since primary resection. Median survival was similar in the two arms: 3.5 years after metastasectomy and 3.8 years among controls and hazard ratio for death within five years of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56–1.56). There were 12 five-year survivors after metastasectomy and 11 among controls. The size of the trial does not exclude the possibility of occasional long-term survivors in whom metastasectomy appears to have removed the only residue of cancer, as has been observed anecdotally. As might be expected, after metastasectomy there was a decline in lung function as measured by % predicted FEV1. There were also more lung symptoms among the patient reported outcomes. The decline in self-reported health state was similar in the two arms. The generally assumed near zero five-year survival without metastasectomy was not found in PulMiCC or in the control groups of two other randomised studies, CLOCC and SABRE-COMET. Patients, and those treating for them, should be aware of this new information in reaching a decision about lung metastasectomy.
在建立和运行PulMiCC(癌症结直肠癌肺转移切除术)随机对照试验的过程中,我们学到了什么?
:大多数肺转移手术是针对癌症(CRC)。这种做法是高度选择性的。在进行了潜在治疗性切除的患者中,约有2-3%的患者随后进行了肺转移切除术。手术的动机是通过切除唯一明显残留的癌症来治愈患者。我们回顾了用于调查这一实践所依据的证据的方法,从对已发表的观察性队列研究的回顾,通过引用网络到随机对照试验(RCT)。非劣效性RCT结直肠癌癌症肺转移切除术(PulMiCC)比较了46名随机接受转移切除术的患者和47名对照患者的生存率、生活质量和健康实用性。在已知的预后特征方面,两组患者的病情平衡良好:转移数量、癌胚抗原水平、既往肝转移、癌症分期和初次切除后的时间间隔。两组的中位生存率相似:转移术后3.5年,对照组3.8年,五年内死亡的危险比为0.93(95%CI:0.56-1.56)。转移术后有12名五年生存者,对照组11名。试验的规模并不排除偶尔出现长期幸存者的可能性,在这些幸存者中,转移切除术似乎去除了癌症的唯一残留,正如传闻中所观察到的那样。正如预期的那样,在转移切除术后,肺功能下降,这是通过预测的%FEV1来测量的。患者报告的结果中也有更多的肺部症状。两组患者自我报告健康状况的下降情况相似。在PulMiCC或其他两项随机研究(CLOCC和SABRE-COMET)的对照组中,未发现通常假设的无转移切除的五年生存率接近零。在做出肺转移切除术的决定时,患者和为其治疗的人应该意识到这一新信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信