Background: Tumor ablation is often employed for unresectable colorectal liver metastases. However, no survival benefit has ever been demonstrated in prospective randomized studies. Here, we investigate the long-term benefits of such an aggressive approach.Methods: In this randomized phase II trial, 119 patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (n < 10 and no extrahepatic disease) received systemic treatment alone or systemic treatment plus aggressive local treatment by radiofrequency ablation ± resection. Previously, we reported that the primary end point (30-month overall survival [OS] > 38%) was met. We now report on long-term OS results. All statistical tests were two-sided. The analyses were according to intention to treat.Results: At a median follow up of 9.7 years, 92 of 119 (77.3%) patients had died: 39 of 60 (65.0%) in the combined modality arm and 53 of 59 (89.8%) in the systemic treatment arm. Almost all patients died of progressive disease (35 patients in the combined modality arm, 49 patients in the systemic treatment arm). There was a statistically significant difference in OS in favor of the combined modality arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.88, P = .01). Three-, five-, and eight-year OS were 56.9% (95% CI = 43.3% to 68.5%), 43.1% (95% CI = 30.3% to 55.3%), 35.9% (95% CI = 23.8% to 48.2%), respectively, in the combined modality arm and 55.2% (95% CI = 41.6% to 66.9%), 30.3% (95% CI = 19.0% to 42.4%), 8.9% (95% CI = 3.3% to 18.1%), respectively, in the systemic treatment arm. Median OS was 45.6 months (95% CI = 30.3 to 67.8 months) in the combined modality arm vs 40.5 months (95% CI = 27.5 to 47.7 months) in the systemic treatment arm.Conclusions: This phase II trial is the first randomized study demonstrating that aggressive local treatment can prolong OS in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases.

This is the first randomized study on the efficacy of RFA. The study met the primary end point on 30-month OS; however, the results in the control arm were in the same range. RFA plus systemic treatment resulted in significant longer PFS. At present, the ultimate effect of RFA on OS remains uncertain.

BackgroundNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer.MethodsThis is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4–6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6–8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F–FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy.DiscussionIf active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care.

Candidates for surgery with curative intent for ATC are patients < or = 70 years, tumors < or = 5 cm, and no distant disease. Radiotherapy >45 Gy improves outcome.

Background: The initial treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis is conservative. Intervention is indicated in patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. In the Netherlands, the standard intervention is necrosectomy by laparotomy followed by continuous postoperative lavage (CPL). In recent years several minimally invasive strategies have been introduced. So far, these strategies have never been compared in a randomised controlled trial. The PANTER study (PAncreatitis, Necrosectomy versus sTEp up appRoach) was conceived to yield the evidence needed for a considered policy decision.