The ROAM/EORTC-1308 trial: Radiation versus Observation following surgical resection of Atypical Meningioma: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Atypical meningiomas are an intermediate grade brain tumour with a recurrence rate of 39-58 %. It is not known whether early adjuvant radiotherapy reduces the risk of tumour recurrence and whether the potential side-effects are justified. An alternative management strategy is to perform active monitoring with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to treat at recurrence. There are no randomised controlled trials comparing these two approaches. METHODS/DESIGN A total of 190 patients will be recruited from neurosurgical/neuro-oncology centres across the United Kingdom, Ireland and mainland Europe. Adult patients undergoing gross total resection of intracranial atypical meningioma are eligible. Patients with multiple meningioma, optic nerve sheath meningioma, previous intracranial tumour, previous cranial radiotherapy and neurofibromatosis will be excluded. Informed consent will be obtained from patients. This is a two-stage trial (both stages will run in parallel): Stage 1 (qualitative study) is designed to maximise patient and clinician acceptability, thereby optimising recruitment and retention. Patients wishing to continue will proceed to randomisation. Stage 2 (randomisation) patients will be randomised to receive either early adjuvant radiotherapy for 6 weeks (60 Gy in 30 fractions) or active monitoring. The primary outcome measure is time to MRI evidence of tumour recurrence (progression-free survival (PFS)). Secondary outcome measures include assessing the toxicity of the radiotherapy, the quality of life, neurocognitive function, time to second line treatment, time to death (overall survival (OS)) and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. DISCUSSION ROAM/EORTC-1308 is the first multi-centre randomised controlled trial designed to determine whether early adjuvant radiotherapy reduces the risk of tumour recurrence following complete surgical resection of atypical meningioma. The results of this study will be used to inform current neurosurgery and neuro-oncology practice worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN71502099 on 19 May 2014.

Osteoporosis and bisphosphonates-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: Not just a sporadic coincidence - a multi-centre study

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are powerful drugs that inhibit bone metabolism. Adverse side effects are rare but potentially severe such as bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ). To date, research has primarily focused on the development and progression of BRONJ in cancer patients with bone metastasis, who have received high dosages of BPs intravenously. However, a potential dilemma may arise from a far larger cohort, namely the millions of osteoporosis patients on long-term oral BP therapy.

Greenstick fractures of the middle third of the forearm. A prospective multi-centre study

Greenstick fractures suffered during growth have a high risk for refracture and posttraumatic deformity, particularly at the forearm diaphysis. The use of a preemptive completion of the fracture by manipulation of the concave cortex is controversial and data supporting this approach are few.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CAPACITY): two randomised trials

Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a progressive and fatal lung disease with inevitable loss of lung function. The CAPACITY programme (studies 004 and 006) was designed to confirm the results of a phase 2 study that suggested that pirfenidone, a novel antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory drug, reduces deterioration in lung function in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Methods In two concurrent trials (004 and 006), patients (aged 40–80 years) with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis were randomly assigned to oral pirfenidone or placebo for a minimum of 72 weeks in 110 centres in Australia, Europe, and North America. In study 004, patients were assigned in a 2:1:2 ratio to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, pirfenidone 1197 mg/day, or placebo; in study 006, patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day or placebo. The randomisation code (permuted block design) was computer generated and stratified by region. All study personnel were masked to treatment group assignment until after final database lock. Treatments were administered orally, 801 mg or 399 mg three times a day. The primary endpoint was change in percentage predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 72. Analysis was by intention to treat. The studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00287729 and NCT00287716. Findings In study 004, 174 of 435 patients were assigned to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, 87 to pirfenidone 1197 mg/day, and 174 to placebo. In study 006, 171 of 344 patients were assigned to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, and 173 to placebo. All patients in both studies were analysed. In study 004, pirfenidone reduced decline in FVC (p=0·001). Mean FVC change at week 72 was −8·0% (SD 16·5) in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day group and −12·4% (18·5) in the placebo group (difference 4·4%, 95% CI 0·7 to 9·1); 35 (20%) of 174 versus 60 (35%) of 174 patients, respectively, had a decline of at least 10%. A significant treatment effect was noted at all timepoints from week 24 and in an analysis over all study timepoints (p=0·0007). Mean change in percentage FVC in the pirfenidone 1197 mg/day group was intermediate to that in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day and placebo groups. In study 006, the difference between groups in FVC change at week 72 was not significant (p=0·501). Mean change in FVC at week 72 was −9·0% (SD 19·6) in the pirfenidone group and −9·6% (19·1) in the placebo group, and the difference between groups in predicted FVC change at week 72 was not significant (0·6%, −3·5 to 4·7); however, a consistent pirfenidone effect was apparent until week 48 (p=0·005) and in an analysis of all study timepoints (p=0·007). Patients in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day group had higher incidences of nausea (125 [36%] of 345 vs 60 [17%] of 347), dyspepsia (66 [19%] vs 26 [7%]), vomiting (47 [14%] vs 15 [4%]), anorexia (37 [11%] vs 13 [4%]), photosensitivity (42 [12%] vs 6 [2%]), rash (111 [32%] vs 40 [12%]), and dizziness (63 [18%] vs 35 [10%]) than did those in the placebo group. Fewer overall deaths (19 [6%] vs 29 [8%]) and fewer deaths related to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (12 [3%] vs 25 [7%]) occurred in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day groups than in the placebo groups. Interpretation The data show pirfenidone has a favourable benefit risk profile and represents an appropriate treatment option for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Long-term outcome of ablative therapy of post-operative atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with tetralogy of Fallot: a European multi-centre study

Post-operative atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT) in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) are associated with congestive heart failure, stroke, and cardiac death. Effective treatment is therefore essential. The aim of the study is to evaluate long-term outcome of ablative therapy of AT in ToF patients and to study characteristics of AT recurrences.

Conversion of CT numbers into tissue parameters for Monte Carlo dose calculations: a multi-centre study

The conversion of computed tomography (CT) numbers into material composition and mass density data influences the accuracy of patient dose calculations in Monte Carlo treatment planning (MCTP). The aim of our work was to develop a CT conversion scheme by performing a stoichiometric CT calibration. Fourteen dosimetrically equivalent tissue subsets (bins), of which ten bone bins, were created. After validating the proposed CT conversion scheme on phantoms, it was compared to a conventional five bin scheme with only one bone bin. This resulted in dose distributions D(14) and D(5) for nine clinical patient cases in a European multi-centre study. The observed local relative differences in dose to medium were mostly smaller than 5%. The dose-volume histograms of both targets and organs at risk were comparable, although within bony structures D(14) was found to be slightly but systematically higher than D(5). Converting dose to medium to dose to water (D(14) to D(14wat) and D(5) to D(5wat)) resulted in larger local differences as D(5wat) became up to 10% higher than D(14wat). In conclusion, multiple bone bins need to be introduced when Monte Carlo (MC) calculations of patient dose distributions are converted to dose to water.

Recombinant human erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer. METHODS: Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups. FINDINGS: Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (1.06, 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 for mortality during the active study period, and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1.10 (0.98-1.24), and 1.04 (0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0.42). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).

The association between admission systolic blood pressure and mortality in significant traumatic brain injury: A multi-centre cohort study

INTRODUCTION Low systolic blood pressure (SBP) is an important secondary insult following traumatic brain injury (TBI), but its exact relationship with outcome is not well characterised. Although a SBP of <90mmHg represents the threshold for hypotension in consensus TBI treatment guidelines, recent studies suggest redefining hypotension at higher levels. This study therefore aimed to fully characterise the association between admission SBP and mortality to further inform resuscitation endpoints. METHODS We conducted a multicentre cohort study using data from the largest European trauma registry. Consecutive adult patients with AIS head scores >2 admitted directly to specialist neuroscience centres between 2005 and July 2012 were studied. Multilevel logistic regression models were developed to examine the association between admission SBP and 30 day inpatient mortality. Models were adjusted for confounders including age, severity of injury, and to account for differential quality of hospital care. RESULTS 5057 patients were included in complete case analyses. Admission SBP demonstrated a smooth u-shaped association with outcome in a bivariate analysis, with increasing mortality at both lower and higher values, and no evidence of any threshold effect. Adjusting for confounding slightly attenuated the association between mortality and SBP at levels <120mmHg, and abolished the relationship for higher SBP values. Case-mix adjusted odds of death were 1.5 times greater at <120mmHg, doubled at <100mmHg, tripled at <90mmHg, and six times greater at SBP<70mmHg, p<0.01. CONCLUSIONS These findings indicate that TBI studies should model SBP as a continuous variable and may suggest that current TBI treatment guidelines, using a cut-off for hypotension at SBP<90mmHg, should be reconsidered.