Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Apr;24(21):1–38. doi: 10.3310/hta24210

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

Brian Davidson, Kurinchi Gurusamy, Neil Corrigan, Julie Croft, Sharon Ruddock, Alison Pullan, Julia Brown, Maureen Twiddy, Jaqueline Birtwistle, Stephen Morris, Nick Woodward, Steve Bandula, Daniel Hochhauser, Raj Prasad, Steven Olde Damink, Marielle Coolson, K van Laarhoven, Johannes Hw de Wilt
PMCID: PMC7232132  PMID: 32370822

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.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

In about 50% of people with bowel cancer, cancer spreads to the liver (colorectal liver metastases) within 5 years of detection and treatment. Liver resection (i.e. surgical removal of a portion of the liver) is the standard treatment in people below 70 years of age who are otherwise well, provided that the liver cancer is confined to a limited part of the liver. Such patients are considered ‘low-risk’ patients. Older patients and those with major medical problems or extensive cancers are considered ‘high-risk’ patients, as they are at a higher risk of developing complications following liver resection. Thermal ablation destroys the liver cancers using a needle that heats the cancer deposits until they are destroyed. There is significant uncertainty as to whether or not ablation can offer equivalent survival compared with surgery for ‘high-risk’ patients. We planned and conducted a randomised controlled trial comparing ablation with surgery to resolve this uncertainty. In this trial, some patients received ablation and others received surgery. The treatment was allocated at random with neither patients nor the study organisers choosing the treatment. The trial had an internal pilot (i.e. a smaller version of the full trial to resolve any ‘teething problems’ and ensure that a sufficient number of participants can be included in the full trial). Only nine patients were recruited in the 1-year internal pilot, compared with the anticipated recruitment of 45 patients. Therefore, the trial closed early as a result of poor recruitment, and the uncertainty about the best treatment for high-risk patients with colorectal liver metastases continues. The main reasons for the poor recruitment included fewer than anticipated eligible participants, clinicians’ unconscious bias towards surgery, and patients’ preference for one treatment or the other. In the future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from a feasibility study or a longer period of pilot study to resolve any difficulties.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Gurusamy K, Corrigan N, Croft J, Twiddy M, Morris S, Woodward N, et al. Liver resection surgery versus thermal ablation for colorectal LiVer MetAstases (LAVA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2018;19:105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2499-5 doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2499-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Bertot LC, Sato M, Tateishi R, Yoshida H, Koike K. Mortality and complication rates of percutaneous ablative techniques for the treatment of liver tumors: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 2011;21:2584–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2222-3 doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2222-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Ierardi AM, Floridi C, Fontana F, Chini C, Giorlando F, Piacentino F, et al. Microwave ablation of liver metastases to overcome the limitations of radiofrequency ablation. Radiol Med 2013;118:949–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-013-0968-1 doi: 10.1007/s11547-013-0968-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Nishiwada S, Ko S, Mukogawa T, Ishikawa H, Matsusaka M, Nakatani T, et al. Comparison between percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and surgical hepatectomy focusing on local disease control rate for colorectal liver metastases. Hepatogastroenterology 2014;61:436–41. [PubMed]
  5. Tanis E, Nordlinger B, Mauer M, Sorbye H, van Coevorden F, Gruenberger T, et al. Local recurrence rates after radiofrequency ablation or resection of colorectal liver metastases. Analysis of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer #40004 and #40983. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:912–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.12.008 doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Vogl TJ, Farshid P, Naguib NN, Darvishi A, Bazrafshan B, Mbalisike E, et al. Thermal ablation of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: radiofrequency, microwave and laser ablation therapies. Radiol Med 2014;119:451–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0415-y doi: 10.1007/s11547-014-0415-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Chok KS, Cheung TT, Lo RC, Chu FS, Tsang SH, Chan AC, et al. Pilot study of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation as a bridging therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients wait-listed for liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2014;20:912–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.23892 doi: 10.1002/lt.23892. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Loveman E, Jones J, Clegg AJ, Picot J, Colquitt JL, Mendes D, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies in the management of liver metastases: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(7). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18070 doi: 10.3310/hta18070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. Kim KH, Yoon YS, Yu CS, Kim TW, Kim HJ, Kim PN, et al. Comparative analysis of radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection for colorectal liver metastases. J Korean Surg Soc 2011;81:25–34. https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2011.81.1.25 doi: 10.4174/jkss.2011.81.1.25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Shibata T, Niinobu T, Ogata N, Takami M. Microwave coagulation therapy for multiple hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2000;89:276–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20000715)89:2<276::AID-CNCR11>3.0.CO;2-0 doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20000715)89:2&#x0003c;276::AID-CNCR11&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Ko S, Jo H, Yun S, Park E, Kim S, Seo HI. Comparative analysis of radiofrequency ablation and resection for resectable colorectal liver metastases. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:525–31. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i2.525 doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i2.525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials 2006;7:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-7-9 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Wade J, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: opening the ‘black box’ of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:2018–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Paramasivan S, Huddart R, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A, Donovan JL. Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011). Trials 2011;12:78. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-78 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Collinson FJ, Gregory WM, McCabe C, Howard H, Lowe C, Potrata D, et al. The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of Sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic renal cancer. BMC Cancer 2012;12:598. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-598 doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Hamilton DW, de Salis I, Donovan JL, Birchall M. The recruitment of patients to trials in head and neck cancer: a qualitative study of the EaStER trial of treatments for early laryngeal cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:2333–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2349-8 doi: 10.1007/s00405-013-2349-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Realpe A, Adams A, Wall P, Griffin D, Donovan JL. A new simple six-step model to promote recruitment to RCTs was developed and successfully implemented. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;76:166–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials 2014;15:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-5 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. van Overhagen H, van Zwam WH, Krajina A, Fiehler J, Reekers JA, Cekirge S, et al. CIRSE position statement: interventional radiologists and intra-arterial stroke therapy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2018;41:1460–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-2051-8 doi: 10.1007/s00270-018-2051-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualit Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [DOI]
  21. Blazeby JM, Fayers P, Conroy T, Sezer O, Ramage J, Rees M, European Organization for Research Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group. Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-LMC21 questionnaire for assessment of patient-reported outcomes during treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 2009;96:291–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6471 doi: 10.1002/bjs.6471. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. EORTC. EORTC QLQ-C30. URL: http://groups.eortc.be/qol/eortc-qlq-c30 (accessed 17 July 2014).
  23. EuroQoL. What is EQ-5D? URL: www.euroqol.org/home.html (accessed 17 July 2014).
  24. Joffe H, Yardley L. Content and Thematic Analysis. In Marks DF, Yardle L, editors. Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2004.
  25. Paramasivan S, Strong S, Wilson C, Campbell B, Blazeby JM, Donovan JL. A simple technique to identify key recruitment issues in randomised controlled trials: Q-QAT – Quanti-Qualitative Appointment Timing. Trials 2015;16:88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0617-1 doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0617-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Mills N, Blazeby JM, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Campbell B, Wilson C, et al. Training recruiters to randomized trials to facilitate recruitment and informed consent by exploring patients’ treatment preferences. Trials 2014;15:323. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-323 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Mills N, Donovan JL, Wade J, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Lane JA. Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1127–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. Blazeby JM. Recruiting patients into randomized clinical trials in surgery. Br J Surg 2012;99:307–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7818 doi: 10.1002/bjs.7818. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Donovan JL, Peters TJ, Noble S, Powell P, Gillatt D, Oliver SE, et al. Who can best recruit to randomized trials? Randomized trial comparing surgeons and nurses recruiting patients to a trial of treatments for localized prostate cancer (the ProtecT study). J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:605–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00083-0 doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00083-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Toerien M, Donovan J. Qualitative research to improve RCT recruitment: issues arising in establishing research collaborations. Contemp Clin Trials 2008;29:663–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2008.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. GOV.UK. Office for National Statistics. URL: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-national-statistics (accessed February 2020).

RESOURCES