Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 11/2018

01-10-2018 | Colorectal Cancer

Defining Non-inferiority Margins for Quality of Surgical Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Delphi Consensus Study

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 11/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Quality of surgical resection metrics (QSRMs) have been used as surrogates for long-term oncologic outcomes in non-inferiority randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer. However, non-inferiority margins (ΔNI) for QSRMs have not been previously defined.

Methods

A two-round, web-based Delphi was used to define ΔNI for four QSRMs: positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), incomplete plane of mesorectal excision (PME), positive distal resection margin (DRM), and a composite of these outcomes. Overall, 130 international experts in rectal cancer (68 surgeons, 20 medical oncologists, 16 radiation oncologists, and 26 pathologists) were invited to participate. Experts were presented with evidence syntheses summarizing the association between QSRMs and long-term outcomes, and pooled quality of surgical resection outcomes for open surgery, and were asked to provide ΔNI for all outcomes balancing the risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Results

Seventy-two experts participated: 57 completed the initial questionnaire and 58 completed the revised questionnaire, with 43 participating in both rounds. Consensus was reached for all individual QSRM ΔNI but not for the composite. The mean (standard deviation) ΔNI was an absolute difference of 2.33% (1.59%) for the proportion of positive CRMs when comparing surgical interventions for the treatment of rectal cancer: 2.85% (1.83%) for incomplete PME; 1.28% (1.13%) for positive DRMs; and 2.71% (2.28%) for the composite. However, opinions varied widely for the composite outcome.

Conclusions

Web-based Delphi processes are a feasible approach to generate ΔNI to evaluate novel surgical interventions. The generated ΔNI for QSRMs for rectal cancer can be used for future RCTs and non-inferiority meta-analyses.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;3:CD003145. Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;3:CD003145.
2.
go back to reference Mulla SM, Scott IA, Jackevicius CA, You JJ, Guyatt GH. How to use a noninferiority trial: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2012;308(24):2605–11.CrossRef Mulla SM, Scott IA, Jackevicius CA, You JJ, Guyatt GH. How to use a noninferiority trial: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2012;308(24):2605–11.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Baber N. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use (ICH). Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;37(5):401–4.CrossRef Baber N. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use (ICH). Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;37(5):401–4.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. Stat Med. 2006;25(10):1628. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. Stat Med. 2006;25(10):1628.
5.
go back to reference Rothmann M, Li N, Chen G, Chi GY, Temple R, Tsou HH. Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials in oncology. Stat Med. 2003;22(2):239–64.CrossRef Rothmann M, Li N, Chen G, Chi GY, Temple R, Tsou HH. Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials in oncology. Stat Med. 2003;22(2):239–64.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Rothmann MD, Tsou HH. On non-inferiority analysis based on delta-method confidence intervals. J Biopharm Stat. 2003;13(3):565–83.CrossRef Rothmann MD, Tsou HH. On non-inferiority analysis based on delta-method confidence intervals. J Biopharm Stat. 2003;13(3):565–83.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Wyrwich KW, Spertus JA, Kroenke K, et al. Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease: an expert consensus panel report. Am Heart J. 2004;147(4):615–22.CrossRef Wyrwich KW, Spertus JA, Kroenke K, et al. Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease: an expert consensus panel report. Am Heart J. 2004;147(4):615–22.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bellamy N, Carette S, Ford P, et al. Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials—results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. J Rheumatol. 1992;19(3):451–7.PubMed Bellamy N, Carette S, Ford P, et al. Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials—results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. J Rheumatol. 1992;19(3):451–7.PubMed
9.
go back to reference McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1342–3.CrossRef McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1342–3.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(2):406–12.PubMed Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(2):406–12.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Treadwell JR, Uhl S, Tipton K, et al. Assessing equivalence and noninferiority. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(11):1144–9.CrossRef Treadwell JR, Uhl S, Tipton K, et al. Assessing equivalence and noninferiority. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(11):1144–9.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1356–63.CrossRef Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1356–63.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1346–55.CrossRef Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1346–55.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kennedy RH, Francis EA, Wharton R, et al. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme: EnROL. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(17):1804–11.CrossRef Kennedy RH, Francis EA, Wharton R, et al. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme: EnROL. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(17):1804–11.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):210–8.CrossRef van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):210–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Gong J, Shi D-B, Li X-X, Cai S-J, Guan Z-Q, Xu Y. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision compared to open surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(48):7308.CrossRef Gong J, Shi D-B, Li X-X, Cai S-J, Guan Z-Q, Xu Y. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision compared to open surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(48):7308.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Liang XB, Hou SH, Li GD, et al. Randomized controlled trial of rectal laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery 3-year efficacy summary. European Surgery—Acta Chirurgica Austriaca. 2015. In: Conference: 8th annual meeting of the chinese college of surgeons and 19th annual meeting of the European Society of Surgery. Beijing. Conference Publication: (var.pagings), vol. 47, p. S79. Liang XB, Hou SH, Li GD, et al. Randomized controlled trial of rectal laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery 3-year efficacy summary. European Surgery—Acta Chirurgica Austriaca. 2015. In: Conference: 8th annual meeting of the chinese college of surgeons and 19th annual meeting of the European Society of Surgery. Beijing. Conference Publication: (var.pagings), vol. 47, p. S79.
18.
go back to reference Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(7):637–45.CrossRef Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(7):637–45.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Lujan J, Valero G, Hernandez Q, Sanchez A, Frutos M, Parrilla P. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96(9):982–9.CrossRef Lujan J, Valero G, Hernandez Q, Sanchez A, Frutos M, Parrilla P. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96(9):982–9.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Pechlivanides G, Gouvas N, Tsiaoussis J, et al. Lymph node clearance after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus open approach. Dig Dis. 2007;25(1):94–9.CrossRef Pechlivanides G, Gouvas N, Tsiaoussis J, et al. Lymph node clearance after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus open approach. Dig Dis. 2007;25(1):94–9.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Braga M, Frasson M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Capretti G, Di Carlo V. Laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer patients: outcome and cost-benefit analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(4):464–471.CrossRef Braga M, Frasson M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Capretti G, Di Carlo V. Laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer patients: outcome and cost-benefit analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(4):464–471.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1718–26.CrossRef Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1718–26.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Ng SS, Leung KL, Lee JF, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(9):2418–25.CrossRef Ng SS, Leung KL, Lee JF, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(9):2418–25.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Ng SS, Leung KL, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Li JC, Hon SS. Long-term morbidity and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection for upper rectal cancer: ten-year results of a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(4):558–66.CrossRef Ng SS, Leung KL, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Li JC, Hon SS. Long-term morbidity and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection for upper rectal cancer: ten-year results of a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(4):558–66.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Ng SS, Lee JF, Yiu RY, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):297–306.CrossRef Ng SS, Lee JF, Yiu RY, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):297–306.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Zhou X, Liu F, Lin C, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with open resection for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched study with long-term follow-up. World J Surg Oncol. 13(1) (no pagination), 2015. 2015;Article Number:199. Date of Publication: June 110. Zhou X, Liu F, Lin C, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with open resection for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched study with long-term follow-up. World J Surg Oncol. 13(1) (no pagination), 2015. 2015;Article Number:199. Date of Publication: June 110.
27.
go back to reference Araujo SEA, Sousa Jr AHdS, Campos FGCMd, et al. Conventional approach × laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: results of a prospective randomized trial. Revista do Hospital das Clínicas. 2003;58(3):133–40.CrossRef Araujo SEA, Sousa Jr AHdS, Campos FGCMd, et al. Conventional approach × laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: results of a prospective randomized trial. Revista do Hospital das Clínicas. 2003;58(3):133–40.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Hsu C-C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1–8. Hsu C-C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1–8.
29.
go back to reference Lee AC, Cousens S, Darmstadt GL, et al. Care during labor and birth for the prevention of intrapartum-related neonatal deaths: a systematic review and Delphi estimation of mortality effect. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(Suppl 3):S10.CrossRef Lee AC, Cousens S, Darmstadt GL, et al. Care during labor and birth for the prevention of intrapartum-related neonatal deaths: a systematic review and Delphi estimation of mortality effect. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(Suppl 3):S10.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Roxburgh CS, Guillem JG. Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(1):115–6.CrossRef Roxburgh CS, Guillem JG. Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(1):115–6.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Rehal S, Morris TP, Fielding K, Carpenter JR, Phillips PPJ. Non-inferiority trials: are they inferior? A systematic review of reporting in major medical journals. BMJ Open. 2016;6(10):e012594.CrossRef Rehal S, Morris TP, Fielding K, Carpenter JR, Phillips PPJ. Non-inferiority trials: are they inferior? A systematic review of reporting in major medical journals. BMJ Open. 2016;6(10):e012594.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Gayet-Ageron A, Agoritsas T, Rudaz S, Courvoisier D, Perneger T. The choice of the noninferiority margin in clinical trials was driven by baseline risk, type of primary outcome, and benefits of new treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(10):1144–51.CrossRef Gayet-Ageron A, Agoritsas T, Rudaz S, Courvoisier D, Perneger T. The choice of the noninferiority margin in clinical trials was driven by baseline risk, type of primary outcome, and benefits of new treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(10):1144–51.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Defining Non-inferiority Margins for Quality of Surgical Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Delphi Consensus Study
Publication date
01-10-2018
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6639-7

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

Annals of Surgical Oncology 11/2018 Go to the issue