Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Liver resection surgery compared with thermal ablation in high surgical risk patients with colorectal liver metastases: the LAVA international RCT

Davidson, Brian; Gurusamy, Kurinchi; Corrigan, Neil; Croft, Julie; Ruddock, Sharon; Pullan, Alison; Brown, Julia; Twiddy, Maureen; Birtwistle, Jaqueline; Morris, Stephen; Woodward, Nick; Bandula, Steve; Hochhauser, Daniel; Prasad, Raj; Damink, Steven Olde; Coolson, Marielle; van Laarhoven, K.; de Wilt, Johannes H.W.

Authors

Brian Davidson

Kurinchi Gurusamy

Neil Corrigan

Julie Croft

Sharon Ruddock

Alison Pullan

Julia Brown

Jaqueline Birtwistle

Stephen Morris

Nick Woodward

Steve Bandula

Daniel Hochhauser

Raj Prasad

Steven Olde Damink

Marielle Coolson

K. van Laarhoven

Johannes H.W. de Wilt



Abstract

Background: Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases, thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. There have been no adequately powered trials comparing surgery with thermal ablation. Objectives: Main objective – to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation versus liver resection surgery in high surgical risk patients who would be eligible for liver resection. Pilot study objectives – to assess the feasibility of recruitment (through qualitative study), to assess the quality of ablations and liver resection surgery to determine acceptable standards for the main trial and to centrally review the reporting of computed tomography scan findings relating to ablation and outcomes and recurrence rate in both arms. Design: A prospective, international (UK and the Netherlands), multicentre, open, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 1-year internal pilot study. Setting: Tertiary liver, pancreatic and gallbladder (hepatopancreatobiliary) centres in the UK and the Netherlands. Participants: Adults with a specialist multidisciplinary team diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases who are at high surgical risk because of their age, comorbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation. Interventions: Thermal ablation conducted as per local policy (but centres were encouraged to recruit within Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines) versus surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol. Main outcome measures: Pilot study – patients’ and clinicians’ acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. Primary outcome – disease-free survival at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes – overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, and disease-free survival measured from end of intervention. It was planned that 5-year survival data would be documented through record linkage. Randomisation was performed by minimisation incorporating a random element, and this was a non-blinded study. Results: In the pilot study over 1 year, a total of 366 patients with colorectal liver metastases were screened and 59 were considered eligible. Only nine participants were randomised. The trial was stopped early and none of the planned statistical analyses was performed. The key issues inhibiting recruitment included fewer than anticipated patients eligible for both treatments, misconceptions about the eligibility criteria for the trial, surgeons’ preference for one of the treatments (‘lack of clinical equipoise’ among some of the surgeons in the centre) with unconscious bias towards surgery, patients’ preference for one of the treatments, and lack of dedicated research nurses for the trial. Conclusions: Recruitment feasibility was not demonstrated during the pilot stage of the trial; therefore, the trial closed early. In future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from an initial feasibility study or a longer period of internal pilot study to resolve these difficulties. Sufficient time should be allowed to set up arrangements through National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Networks. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52040363.

Citation

Davidson, B., Gurusamy, K., Corrigan, N., Croft, J., Ruddock, S., Pullan, A., …de Wilt, J. H. (2020). Liver resection surgery compared with thermal ablation in high surgical risk patients with colorectal liver metastases: the LAVA international RCT. Health Technology Assessment, 24(21), 1-66. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24210

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Jan 29, 2019
Publication Date Jan 1, 2020
Deposit Date May 3, 2022
Publicly Available Date May 9, 2022
Journal Health Technology Assessment
Print ISSN 1366-5278
Electronic ISSN 2046-4924
Publisher NIHR Journals Library
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 24
Issue 21
Pages 1-66
DOI https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24210
Keywords Health Policy
Public URL https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/3504326
Additional Information Free to read: This content has been made freely available to all.; Contractual start date: 1-2016; Editorial review begun: 1-2019; Accepted for publication: 12-2019

Files

Published article (1.6 Mb)
PDF

Publisher Licence URL
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Copyright Statement
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Davidson et al. under the terms of a
commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for
the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals
provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising.
Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health
Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park,
Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.





You might also like



Downloadable Citations