Pylorus resection versus pylorus preservation in pancreatoduodenectomy (PyloResPes): study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a German multicentre, single-blind, surgical, registry-based randomised controlled trial

Inclusion criteria

• ▪ Age ≥18 years;

• ▪ planned partial pancreatoduodenectomy for any indication (e.g. resectable benign or malign tumour of the pancreatic head or the periampullary region);

• ▪ Written informed consent of the patient or legal representative.

Exclusion criteria

• ▪ Age <18 years;

• ▪ Patients participating in another interventional trial interfering with the surgical intervention or the outcomes of this trial;

• ▪ Patients with expected lack of compliance and/or irreconcilable language barriers.

By defining less stringent inclusion criteria, almost the whole spectrum of diseases in the pancreatic head region is of interest. The trial population is covered by the multicentre DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas registry which provides representative data on pancreatic surgery in academic and non-academic hospitals with a medium to high institutional and surgeon caseload, while capturing about 20% of all pancreatic resections performed annually in Germany.¹⁰ The registry is recognized by surgeons as a valuable tool to assess institutional quality and effectiveness of pancreatic surgery and surgical interventions and has received significant acceptance.

Control intervention: Pylorus preserving partial pancreatoduodenectomy (ppPD)

The duodenum will be divided (e.g. with a linear stapling device) at least 1cm distal to the pylorus, preserving the gastric vessels along the lesser and the greater curvature. After performing the pancreatic anastomosis (pancreatojejunostomy or pancreatogastrostomy) and the hepaticojejunostomy, the gastrointestinal passage can be reconstructed through a standard Roux-en-Y reconstruction or as a single-loop omega-shaped reconstruction with or without an additional side-to-side jejunojejunal anastomosis (Figure 1a–c). Regarding the duodenojejunostomy, it is left up to the standard at the respective surgical department whether continuous or interrupted sutures in a single layer or two layer technique are employed, or whether the duodenal staple line is included or excluded from the anastomosis. The route of reconstruction must be documented in the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry eCRF. The ppPD is well-chosen as the reference treatment as it is regarded as the standard treatment for resectable tumours of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.²²

Experimental intervention: Pylorus resecting partial pancreatoduodenectomy (prPD)

In the prPD group, the stomach will be divided within 5cm proximal to the pyloric ring (e.g. with a linear stapling device) with complete preservation of the gastric vessels along both curvatures to maintain perfusion of the distal stomach via the gastroepiploic vessels and the left gastric artery, respectively. As in the ppPD group, the pancreatic and bile duct anastomosis will be performed. Similar to the control group, reconstruction can be established through a standard Roux-en-Y reconstruction or as a single-loop omega-shaped reconstruction, but in contrast to the ppPD group, an additional side-to-side jejunojejunal anastomosis has to be performed (Figure 1d and e). Similar to the ppD group, the technique of the duodenojejunostomy will be left up to the preferences of the participating surgery department. The route of reconstruction must also be documented in the eCRF.

The same perioperative and postoperative standard operating procedures are in place for both surgical interventions, and study patients in both groups will be accommodated on the same wards to ensure postoperative care according to the institutional standards.

Conversion from ppPD to prPD, adherence to the assigned intervention

Due to intraoperative circumstances and disease severity, not all patients randomised will receive the assigned intervention reflecting clinical reality. This is particularly true in the case of pre-operative randomisation. If a patient is randomised on the day before surgery to receive ppPD, the surgeon will have to confirm that PD is feasible, and preservation of the pylorus is technically possible and oncologically justified. Otherwise, the surgeon will have to convert from ppPD to prPD. Reasons for conversion can arise intraoperatively, e.g., for technical infeasibility or significant bleeding. Affected trial participants will be denoted as ‘crossover patients’. In the case of a pre-operative randomisation, a patient can also turn out to be non-resectable or having a previously unknown metastatic disease, and neither of the two surgical procedures investigated can be undertaken. The reason for all deviations between the intended and actual allocation will be documented in the eCRF. If a pre-operatively randomised patient does not receive the intended treatment or even neither of the treatments, he or she remains in the trial until the end of the follow-up period.²¹

Relevant concomitant care during the trial

Due to the pragmatic attitude of this rRCT, no instructions or recommendations on the perioperative management of the patients will be given. Hence, no permitted or prohibited procedures exist. Peri- and postoperative medical treatment including antibiotic medication, prokinetic drugs and somatostatin analogues should be administered according to the respective institutional standards, but must be documented in the registry. Furthermore, endoscopic examination of the duodenojejunostomy or the gastrojejunostomy in the case of DGE can be performed. In both groups, the nasogastric tube can be removed as soon as mechanical ventilation is stopped, but the decision remains up to the surgeon in charge. All patients will be further treated as it is routinely carried out in the respective surgical department.

Primary outcome

The primary outcome is the occurrence of DGE grade A, B, or C (mild, moderate, and severe forms) up to 30 days post-surgery. The assessment of DGE is objective and uses the obvious criterion of the presence of a gastric tube as defined by the ISGPS in 2007.⁴ Table 1 displays the different forms of DGE classified by their clinical impact. All study patients should be classified with result DGE yes vs no (irrespective of the clinical grading). A patient will be positive, if DGE is diagnosed within 30 days after index operation. In both treatment groups, the overall DGE incidence within 30 days after the index operation will be assessed as primary outcome measure. We chose the time period of 30 days to reliably observe all occurring postoperative events of DGE because after this time interval it is very unlikely that reinsertion of the nasogastric tube is causally linked to DGE. Several trials have already used this primary endpoint.²³

Secondary outcomes

To compare peri- and postoperative outcomes between both groups, the following patient- and surgeon-oriented secondary outcomes will be assessed:

Intraoperative outcomes

• ▪ Operation time [minutes],

• ▪ Histological parameters

• ▪ Conversion from ppPD to prPD [yes/no]

• ▪ Blood loss [ml],

Postoperative outcomes

• ▪ General complications within 30 days after index operation (e.g. wound infection, pulmonary complications, organ failure) scored according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (<3b vs ≥3b);^24,25

• ▪ Overall mortality: death from any cause within 30 days after index operation;

• ▪ Postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS): Number of days from the day after index surgery up to the day of discharge from primary hospital;

• ▪ Insufficiency of gastro-/ duodenojejunostomy and the jejunojejunal anastomosis [yes/no] within 30 days after index operation;

• ▪ Pancreatic surgery-specific complications (besides DGE) within 30 days after index operation:

  • - Postoperative pancreatic fistula²⁶

  • - Postpancreatectomy haemorrhage²⁷

  • - Biliary leak²⁸

  • - Chyle leak/ lymphatic fistula;²⁹

• ▪ Necessity for re-operations: Number of re-operations within 30 days after index operation;

• ▪ Hospital re-admissions: subsequent hospital re-admission [yes/no] within 30 days after index operation.

Data collection and trial visits

During the screening visit (≥1 days before surgery), eligibility criteria will be assessed. Those patients who refuse written informed consent for the trial but give informed consent for the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry will be documented in the registry only. After providing informed consent to participate in the trial, the patient’s demographic and clinical characteristics, medical history, comorbidities, preoperative diagnostics and laboratory will be assessed and documented. After randomisation, surgical intervention will occur on day 0 with assessment of the operation details, intra-and perioperative parameters as well as adverse events. A standard follow-up care will be performed. Follow-ups are scheduled on day 7, day 14 or the day of discharge (whichever occurs first), and on day 30 after study-related index operation. Postoperative follow-up can occur as clinic visits or by phone with documentation of the primary and secondary endpoints including serious adverse events. Table 2 summarizes the patient data collection. Figure 2 displays the patient flow.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. CONSORT flow chart describing the planned trial process (ignoring the planned interim analysis).

* Loss to follow-up estimated to be marginal during the follow-up period until POD 30.

^† Exclusion from analysis estimated to be marginal during the follow-up period (until POD 30).

2-stage written informed consent (documentation in the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry; enrolment into the trial). CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; POD, postoperative day.

Outcome assessors will evaluate the presence of the primary endpoint during clinic visits and from the patient’s medical record and, if indicated, by a telephone call on POD 30.

Safety aspects

Complication rates and SAEs will be closely monitored for the assessment of safety. SAEs occurring in the period from the day of randomisation to the end of the postoperative follow-up will be documented.

Registry-based reporting and data management

This trial is nested within the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry documenting key parameters related to pancreatic surgeries since September 2013 and uses the same infrastructure. Data acquisition is performed by a browser-based eCRF system which is based on PHP and R software.¹⁰ All study data will be stored electronically in the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry.

In summary, using the IT-infrastructure of the registry provides the following advantages: (1) Participation of institutions and documentation is already implemented. (2) The eCRF is already established und implemented. (3) Additional trial-specific items can be added at any time. (4) The data management processes (including automated plausibility checks of data entry and query generation) are already established and were extended for trial purposes implementing further consistency checks. (5) Expenses for implementation of eCRFs and data management are minimal. (6) The study population can be reflected within the documented, more general patient population increasing the generalizability of the trial results.

All installations were made in compliance with the GDPR and are continuously monitored by the data protection officers. All study data will be entered by the investigators or designated staff into the StuDoQ eCRF and stored in pseudonymized form. Data management and quality control will be performed using automatic data validation requests/ data entry plausibility checks within the eCRF and on-site monitoring to ensure accuracy and enquire implausible or missing data on a regular basis. Supplementary periodic validation checks performed by the data management team will also encompass data derived by the randomisation tool REDCap and will take place on a regular basis. After web-based data entry into the StuDoQ eCRF, data are automatically checked for completeness and plausibility. Completeness of major quality indicators is mandatory for the inclusion in the annual institutional reports and DGAV certification purposes. Missing or implausible items generate warning messages and queries. Besides, the experience of recruiting centers is documented in the annual quality reports of the registry (Supplemental File 2).

A formal protocol of the registry detailing aims and regulations concerning informed consent, data safety and publication issues was established by the DGAV and can be accessed at http://www.dgav.de/studoq/datenschutzkonzept-und-publikationsrichtlinien.html (in German). This set of rules governing the registry therefore applies to this trial as well. These strategies for data protection regulation are based on the guidelines set forth by the Society for Technology, Methods and Infrastructure for Networked Medical Research (TMF).³⁰ The approved concept of “decentralised patient lists” of the TMF is applied, which allows re-identification only by the treating participating hospital.

Monitoring

As most study centres already participate in the StuDoQ|Pancreas or another organ-specific StuDoQ registry, a high level of routine for data entry and verification can be assumed. As the initiation of the first centres happened closely after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, sites were initiated by virtual meetings. As part of a risk-based monitoring strategy, all centres will be visited on-site or virtually after enrolment of the first 10-15 patients. Key data will be verified for 100% of patients. Trial sites will then be assessed as being either with or without noticeable findings with respect to the trial protocol, data quality and GCP. Monitoring will be performed by the study centre at the site of the coordinating investigator at LMU Munich. The monitor (affiliated to the sponsor of the trial) reviews the eCRF for completeness and accuracy and instructs site personnel to make any required corrections. During monitoring visits, the monitor will ensure that data documented in the eCRF are in line with underlying source data. Sites without noticeable problems will receive no further on-site monitoring visits. Centres assessed as having noticeable problems will be visited again within four months. If problems persist, visits will be repeated three times per year, and key data will be verified for at least 50% of patients at the respective site. If no more findings occur, monitoring visits will no longer be required.

Power considerations and pre-trial sample size calculation

Sample size calculation was performed on the basis of the primary outcome: occurrence of DGE up to POD 30. A recent meta-analysis of RCTs reports a DGE rate of 18% (95% CI [13%; 23.4%]) for prPD, and 21.5% (95% CI [15.6%; 27.1%]) for ppPD patients.⁵ Based on this result and our aim to detect a clinically relevant difference between prPD and ppPD, we chose the following planning scenario: An absolute risk difference of 10% in DGE between both groups is regarded as a minimum clinically important effect, with 25% DGE risk in the ppPD and 15% in the prPD group. We expect that for 15% of the patients in each group the corresponding DGE outcome cannot be assessed (e.g. due to dropout, lost to follow-up or mortality). In this case, the binary outcome will be set to failure within the analysis. Therefore, a failure rate of 0.30 (=0.15+0.15) for the prPD and of 0.40 (=0.25+0.15) for the reference group ppPD was assumed for the initial sample size calculation.

Due to the possible imprecision of the reported rates, a two-stage group sequential design was set up, with one interim analysis after assessment of 50% of the target sample size. The critical values and the test characteristics of this group sequential test design were calculated for a Wang & Tsiatis design with boundary shape parameter Delta=0.23 (values of Delta between 0 and 0.5 give critical values ranging between Pocock and O’Brien & Fleming tests).^32,33 For a pre-specified significance level of 5% (two-sided) and event rates π_prPD=0.3 and π_ppPD=0.4 (odds ratio (OR) of 1.556), the power is 90.0% if both stages consist of two times 246 patients randomised per group, thus resulting in a total number of 984 patients to be assigned to the trial (Supplemental file 3). Assuming that about 70% of eligible patients consent to study participation, about 1406 patients in total have to be screened (Figure 2).

Efficacy interim analysis and continuous study planning

As soon as the primary endpoint has been assessed for 492 randomised patients in total (50% information fraction), the interim analysis will be conducted to inform potential adaptations, with futility stop based on the pre-defined boundaries. If the study continues to the second stage, sample size adaptation will be applied according to Müller & Schäfer,³⁴ while controlling the overall 2-sided 5% significance level.

To compensate for the loss of power due to post-randomisation dropouts (non-resectable/ metastasized patients not being part of the principal analysis) and crossover patients (who did not receive the allocated surgical procedure (prPD instead of ppPD)), which may diminish the observed treatment difference, it might become necessary to increase the sample size accordingly within the scope of the interim analysis aiming to achieve 90% power when analysing the per protocol set as the smallest population.²¹ A certain proportion of crossover patients being unavoidable in the case of pre-operative randomisation was not considered in the initial sample size calculation as no data were available, and the extent of the conversion rate is difficult to be foreseen.

Premature closure of the trial

Stopping is statistically based on rules derived from the primary interim result, however, also based on the feasibility of patient accrual. The trial will be stopped if the first-stage p-value resulting from the planned interim analysis lies below 0.0143 for efficacy to ensure the statistical validity of the applied two-stage group sequential design. It will also be stopped prematurely if the interim analysis permits continuation of the trial, but the re-calculated sample size to achieve sufficient statistical power is infeasible or inefficiently high. Thus, this design avoids prolonged recruitment in order to reach statistical power if the goal is unachievable (the interim analysis cannot account for misspecification of the design parameters that may emerge from the interim results) or, if early significance can be claimed.

Statistical analysis plan

The primary efficacy analysis will be based on three analysis sets. Patients deemed unresectable during surgery (e.g. total pancreatectomy performed) will not be considered in any of the analysis sets, as the primary aim of this trial is to estimate the intervention effect after a PD.

The modified intention-to-treat (mITT) set (FAS, full analysis set) comprises all patients in the group to which they were randomised (converted patients remain in the intended ppPD group; non-resectable patients not considered). Analysing the mITT set can be interpreted as a treatment policy approach according to the estimands framework.³⁵ The per-protocol (PP) set consists of all patients treated per protocol; patients with major protocol violations and crossover patients will be excluded, and no missing data will be imputed (non-resectable patients not considered). In addition, the As-Treated (AT) set will be analysed considering patients according to their actual, rather than randomised (intended) treatment (i.e., converted patients analysed in the prPD group; non-resectable patients not considered). Non-resectability is handled by excluding those patients from all the analyses as they are not part of the targeted population. Other post-randomisation events, like resection of adjacent organs, will be ignored.