Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

The future of trials in surgical oncology

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology volume 12, pages 425–431 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Patients with cancer generally have better outcomes when treated as part of a clinical trial compared with patients not enrolled in a clinical trial. Unfortunately, surgical participation in, and leadership of such studies, is limited. This lack of clinical investigation is adversely affecting progress in cancer surgery research and, ultimately, hinders the treatment of patients. Some of the reasons for poor surgical participation in clinical research include: limitations on funding provision; inadequate training of junior surgeons in clinical trials methodology; and inadequate support of surgical faculty members as clinical investigators. Despite these shortcomings, numerous successful surgical studies have helped to change concepts, and improve patient care in certain clinical areas. Finally, a number of possible solutions are proposed, which might improve surgical involvement in clinical trials and result in more, and better-designed and executed clinical trials in this important area of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Inflation adjusted funding for the NCI Cooperative Group Program for fiscal years 1998–2008.
Figure 2: Flow chart classifying all cancer-related, and oncological surgery-related clinical trials conducted in the USA and Canada from 2001–2011.
Figure 3: Selected outcomes from routine ACOSOG quality assurance audits of surgical oncology studies conducted between 2001–2004.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Unger, J. M. et al. Comparison of survival outcomes among cancer patients treated in and out of clinical trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 106, dju002 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tai, E. et al. Understanding and addressing the lack of clinical trial enrollment among adolescents with cancer. Pediatrics 133, S98–S103 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferrari, A. & Bleyer, A. Participation of adolescents with cancer in clinical trials. Cancer Treat. Rev. 33, 603–608 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Purushotham, A. D., Lewison, G. & Sullivan, R. The state of research and development in global cancer surgery. Ann. Surg. 255, 427–432 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. A National Cancer Clinical Trials System for the 21st Century: Reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. The National Academies Press [online], (2010).

  6. Mann, M., Tendulkar, A., Birger, N., Howard, C. & Ratcliffe, M. B. National Institutes of Health funding for surgical research. Ann. Surg. 247, 217–221 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hartgrink, H. H. et al. Extended lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: who may benefit? Final results of the randomized Dutch Gastric Cancer Group trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 2069–2077 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Peeters, K. C. et al. The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann. Surg. 246, 693–701 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Menezes, A. S. et al. Clinical research in surgical oncology: an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 20, 3725–3731 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Panesar, S. S., Thakrar, R., Athanasiou, T. & Sheikh, A. Comparison of reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in surgical journals: literature review. J. R. Soc. Med. 99, 470–472 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McCulloch, P., Taylor, I., Sasako, M., Lovett, B. & Griffin, D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324, 1448–1451 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Murray, J. E. Surgeon scientist. World J. Surg. 24, 757–758 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoffman, R. L., Hudak-Rosander, C., Datta, J., Morris, J. B. & Kelz, R. R. Goal orientation in surgical residents: a study of the motivation behind learning. J. Surg. Res. 190, 451–456 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dawe, S. R. et al. A systematic review of surgical skills transfer after simulation-based training: laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopy. Ann. Surg. 259, 236–248 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kelz, R. R. & Morris, J. B. Patient safety and surgical training: an unhealthy relationship? Ann. Surg. 249, 877–878 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sturm, L. P. et al. A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Ann. Surg. 248, 166–179 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gallagher, A. G. et al. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann. Surg. 241, 364–372 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chitwood, W. R. Jr et al. Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann. Surg. 234, 475–484 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Suliburk, J. W., Kao, L. S., Kozar, R. A. & Mercer, D. W. Training future surgical scientists: realities and recommendations. Ann. Surg. 247, 741–749 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gaissert, H. A. et al. Mentoring clinical trials in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery: a new role for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 77, 1874–1875 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Balch, C. M. The academic surgeon as a clinical investigator. J. Surg. Res. 40, 413–420 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kestle, J. R. Clinical trials. World J. Surg. 23, 1205–1209 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Eberlein, T. J. Clinical trials methods: a course for surgeons. Bull. Am. Coll. Surg. 84, 49–53 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Palmieri, C., Wanaski, S., Panse, J. & Medeiros, B. The future of clinical cancer research: who's teaching the next generation? The Flims-Vail model. Eur. J. Cancer 40, 173–175 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Department of Surgery Center for Prospective Trials. The Children's Mercy Hospital. The Children's Mercy Hospital [online], (2015).

  26. Department of Surgery. Leiden University Medical Centre [online], (2015).

  27. You, Y. N. et al. Improved surgeon performance in clinical trials: an analysis of quality assurance audits from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 203, 269–276 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. You, Y. N. & Wells, S. A. Jr. Clinical trials in surgery: the role of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group. World J. Surg. 30, 1147–1151 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. You, Y. N. & Wells, S. A. Jr. Role of surgeons in clinical trials for thyroid cancer. World J. Surg. 31, 987–995 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McGinn, F. P. et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and mini-cholecystectomy. Br. J. Surg. 82, 1374–1377 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ji, W. et al. A randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension. World J. Gastroenterol. 11, 2513–2517 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Johansson, M. et al. Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. Br. J. Surg. 92, 44–49 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosenmuller, M. H. et al. Expertise-based randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus small-incision open cholecystectomy. Br. J. Surg. 100, 886–894 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Impact Survey: Federal Funding Cuts to Cancer Research. The American Society of Clinical Oncology [online], (2013).

  35. Eckhouse, S. & Sullivan, R. A survey of public funding of cancer research in the European union. PLoS Med. 3, e267 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Eckhouse, S., Lewison, G. & Sullivan, R. Trends in the global funding and activity of cancer research. Mol. Oncol. 2, 20–32 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Eckhouse, S. & Sullivan, R. The state of academic cancer surgery in the UK. Mol. Oncol. 2, 206–212 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Jungbluth, S. et al. Europe combating cancer: the European Union's commitment to cancer research in the 6th Framework Programme. Mol. Oncol. 1, 14–18 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stuckler, D., King, L., Robinson, H. & McKee, M. WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis. Lancet 372, 1563–1569 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ehrlich, P. F. et al. Lessons learned from a failed multi-institutional randomized controlled study. J. Pediatr. Surg. 37, 431–436 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Ford, E. et al. Clinicians' attitudes towards clinical trials of cancer therapy. Br. J. Cancer 104, 1535–1543 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Horton, R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 347, 984–985 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. McCulloch, P. et al. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ 346, f3012 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Barkun, J. S. et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 374, 1089–1096 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ergina, P. L. et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374, 1097–1104 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. McCulloch, P. et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374, 1105–1112 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Macdonald, J. S. et al. Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N. Engl. J. Med. 345, 725–730 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Cunningham, D. et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 11–20 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Dikken, J. L. et al. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and chemotherapy or by surgery and chemoradiotherapy for patients with resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS). BMC Cancer 11, 329 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Krijnen, P., den Dulk, M., Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg, E., Jansen-Landheer, M. L. & van de Velde, C. J. Improved survival after resectable non-cardia gastric cancer in The Netherlands: the importance of surgical training and quality control. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 35, 715–720 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. den Dulk, M. et al. Improved overall survival for patients with rectal cancer since 1990: the effects of TME surgery and pre-operative radiotherapy. Eur. J. Cancer 44, 1710–1716 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Jayne, D. G. et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 3061–3068 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 2050–2059 (2004).

  54. Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group. et al. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 10, 44–52 (2009).

  55. van der Pas, M. H. et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 14, 210–218 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Higgins, J. P. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343, d5928 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. von Elm, E. et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370, 1453–1457 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. von Elm, E. et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 344–349 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lane, J. A. et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 15, 1109–1118 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lane, J. A. et al. Latest results from the UK trials evaluating prostate cancer screening and treatment: the CAP and ProtecT studies. Eur. J. Cancer 46, 3095–3101 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Veronesi, U. et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 546–553 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lyman, G. H. et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 1365–1383 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Fleissig, A. et al. Post-operative arm morbidity and quality of life. Results of the ALMANAC randomised trial comparing sentinel node biopsy with standard axillary treatment in the management of patients with early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 95, 279–293 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Galimberti, V. et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23–01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 14, 297–305 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Giuliano, A. E. et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 305, 569–575 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Donker, M. et al. Comparison of the sentinel node procedure between patients with multifocal and unifocal breast cancer in the EORTC 10981–22023 AMAROS Trial: identification rate and nodal outcome. Eur. J. Cancer 49, 2093–2100 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. MacFarlane, J. K., Ryall, R. D. & Heald, R. J. Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 341, 457–460 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Bosset, J. F. et al. Fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: long-term results of the EORTC 22921 randomised study. Lancet Oncol. 15, 184–190 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Lefevre, J. H. et al. A multicentric randomized controlled trial on the impact of lengthening the interval between neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and surgery on complete pathological response in rectal cancer (GRECCAR-6 trial): rationale and design. BMC Cancer 13, 417 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. den Dulk, M. et al. Quality of surgery in T3–4 rectal cancer: involvement of circumferential resection margin not influenced by preoperative treatment. Results from EORTC trial 22921. Eur. J. Cancer 43, 1821–1828 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Birkmeyer, J. D. et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 1128–1137 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Birkmeyer, J. D., Sun, Y., Wong, S. L. & Stukel, T. A. Hospital volume and late survival after cancer surgery. Ann. Surg. 245, 777–783 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Finks, J. F., Osborne, N. H. & Birkmeyer, J. D. Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2128–2137 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Sant, M. et al. EUROCARE-4. Survival of cancer patients diagnosed in 1995–1999 results and commentary. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 931–991 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. van de Velde, C. J. et al. Experts reviews of the multidisciplinary consensus conference colon and rectal cancer 2012: science, opinions and experiences from the experts of surgery. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 40, 454–468 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Dikken, J. L. et al. Differences in outcomes of oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery across Europe. Br. J. Surg. 100, 83–94 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. van de Velde, C. J. et al. EURECCA colorectal: multidisciplinary mission statement on better care for patients with colon and rectal cancer in Europe. Eur. J. Cancer 49, 2784–2790 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. van de Velde, C. J. et al. EURECCA colorectal: multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon & rectum. Eur. J. Cancer 50, e1–e34 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Knebel, P., Kuhn, S., Ulrich, A. B., Buchler, M. W. & Diener, M. K. The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society: current trials and results. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 397, 611–618 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Demetri, G. D. et al. Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 472–480 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital and Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenberg, Gothenburg, 41345, Sweden

    Peter Naredi

  2. Paediatric Surgical Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, 10065, NY, USA

    Michael P. La Quaglia

Authors
  1. Peter Naredi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael P. La Quaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors made substantial contributions to researching data for the article, discussions of article content, writing and editing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael P. La Quaglia.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Naredi, P., La Quaglia, M. The future of trials in surgical oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 12, 425–431 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.72

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.72

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer