Development and application of quality assurance methods for interventions in randomised controlled trials of surgical oncology: the ROMIO study (a comparison of minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy)
Natalie S. Blencowe, Natalie S. Blencowe, Anni King, Beverly Shirkey, Chris Metcalfe, Daisy M. Gaunt, Rachel Brierley, Alex Boddy, Simon Higgs, Simon Dwerryhouse, Paul Wilkerson, Richard Berrisford, Tim Underwood, James Byrne, David Bowrey, Ali Guner, Adam Peckham-Cooper

TL;DR
This study develops and tests quality assurance methods for a cancer surgery trial comparing minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy procedures.
Contribution
The paper introduces feasible quality assurance measures for surgical interventions in pragmatic cancer trials.
Findings
All centers met entry criteria, and most surgeons submitted required videos.
Intra-operative photographs were submitted for most procedures but only a small fraction were complete.
CRFs showed better adherence to surgical components than photographs.
Abstract
Results of RCTs are criticised because the quality assurance (QA) of surgical interventions is not considered. This is particularly true in cancer trials, because higher standards of surgery may confer more favourable outcomes. Although methods for surgical QA exist, it is unclear how to operationalise and report them in the context of pragmatic cancer trials. We describe the development and application of QA processes to an RCT comparing laparoscopically assisted (LAO) and open oesophagectomy (OO) in patients with localised oesophageal cancer. Three QA measures were developed in Phase 1 and tested for feasibility in Phase 2: (i) centre/surgeon entry criteria, (ii) agreement of key components of LAO/OO, and (iii)monitoring adherence to intervention protocols using CRFs and intra-operative photographs. All centres met entry criteria and 30/31 Phase 2 surgeons submitted two videos.…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment · Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research · Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
