Cargando…

Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study

INTRODUCTION: Abdominoperineal resections performed for anorectal tumours leave a large pelvic and perineal defect causing a high rate of morbidity of the perineal wound (40%–60%). Biological meshes offer possibilities for new standards of perineal wound reconstruction. Perineal fillings with biolog...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buscail, Etienne, Canivet, Cindy, Ghouti, Laurent, Kirzin, Sylvain, Carrere, Nicolas, Molinier, Laurent, Rosillo, Aline, Lauwers-Cances, Valerie, Costa, Nadège
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8021762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33795299
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043333
_version_ 1783674800160374784
author Buscail, Etienne
Canivet, Cindy
Ghouti, Laurent
Kirzin, Sylvain
Carrere, Nicolas
Molinier, Laurent
Rosillo, Aline
Lauwers-Cances, Valerie
Costa, Nadège
author_facet Buscail, Etienne
Canivet, Cindy
Ghouti, Laurent
Kirzin, Sylvain
Carrere, Nicolas
Molinier, Laurent
Rosillo, Aline
Lauwers-Cances, Valerie
Costa, Nadège
author_sort Buscail, Etienne
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Abdominoperineal resections performed for anorectal tumours leave a large pelvic and perineal defect causing a high rate of morbidity of the perineal wound (40%–60%). Biological meshes offer possibilities for new standards of perineal wound reconstruction. Perineal fillings with biological mesh are expected to increase quality of life by reducing perineal morbidity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised and single-blinded study with a blinded endpoint evaluation, the experimental arm of which uses a biological mesh and the control arm of which is defined by the primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for cancer. Patients eligible for inclusion are patients with a proven history of rectal adenocarcinoma and anal canal epidermoid carcinoma for whom abdominoperineal resection was indicated after a multidisciplinary team discussion. All patients must have social security insurance or equivalent social protection. The main objective is to assess the incremental cost–utility ratio (ICUR) of two strategies of perineal closure after an abdominoperineal resection performed for anorectal cancer treatment: perineal filling with biological mesh versus primary perineal closure (70 patient in each arm). The secondary objectives focus on quality of life and morbidity data during a 1-year follow-up. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be performed in order to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the ICUR. CIs will be constructed using the non-parametric bootstrap approach. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve will be built so as to estimate the probability of efficiency of the biological meshes given a collective willingness-to-pay threshold. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board of ‘Nord Ouest 1’ (protocol reference number: 20.05.14.60714; national number: 2020-A01169-30). The results will be disseminated through conventional scientific channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02841293).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8021762
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80217622021-04-21 Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study Buscail, Etienne Canivet, Cindy Ghouti, Laurent Kirzin, Sylvain Carrere, Nicolas Molinier, Laurent Rosillo, Aline Lauwers-Cances, Valerie Costa, Nadège BMJ Open Surgery INTRODUCTION: Abdominoperineal resections performed for anorectal tumours leave a large pelvic and perineal defect causing a high rate of morbidity of the perineal wound (40%–60%). Biological meshes offer possibilities for new standards of perineal wound reconstruction. Perineal fillings with biological mesh are expected to increase quality of life by reducing perineal morbidity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised and single-blinded study with a blinded endpoint evaluation, the experimental arm of which uses a biological mesh and the control arm of which is defined by the primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for cancer. Patients eligible for inclusion are patients with a proven history of rectal adenocarcinoma and anal canal epidermoid carcinoma for whom abdominoperineal resection was indicated after a multidisciplinary team discussion. All patients must have social security insurance or equivalent social protection. The main objective is to assess the incremental cost–utility ratio (ICUR) of two strategies of perineal closure after an abdominoperineal resection performed for anorectal cancer treatment: perineal filling with biological mesh versus primary perineal closure (70 patient in each arm). The secondary objectives focus on quality of life and morbidity data during a 1-year follow-up. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be performed in order to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the ICUR. CIs will be constructed using the non-parametric bootstrap approach. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve will be built so as to estimate the probability of efficiency of the biological meshes given a collective willingness-to-pay threshold. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board of ‘Nord Ouest 1’ (protocol reference number: 20.05.14.60714; national number: 2020-A01169-30). The results will be disseminated through conventional scientific channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02841293). BMJ Publishing Group 2021-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8021762/ /pubmed/33795299 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043333 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Surgery
Buscail, Etienne
Canivet, Cindy
Ghouti, Laurent
Kirzin, Sylvain
Carrere, Nicolas
Molinier, Laurent
Rosillo, Aline
Lauwers-Cances, Valerie
Costa, Nadège
Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study
title Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study
title_full Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study
title_fullStr Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study
title_full_unstemmed Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study
title_short Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study
title_sort randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the greccar 9 study
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8021762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33795299
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043333
work_keys_str_mv AT buscailetienne randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study
AT canivetcindy randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study
AT ghoutilaurent randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study
AT kirzinsylvain randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study
AT carrerenicolas randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study
AT molinierlaurent randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study
AT rosilloaline randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study
AT lauwerscancesvalerie randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study
AT costanadege randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study
AT randomisedclinicaltrialforthecostutilityevaluationoftwostrategiesofperinealreconstructionafterabdominoperinealresectioninthecontextofanorectalcarcinomabiologicalmeshrepairversusprimaryperinealwoundclosurestudyprotocolforthegreccar9study