Lucy H R Whitaker1, Ann Doust1, Jacqueline Stephen2, John Norrie2, Kevin Cooper3, Jane Daniels4, Lone Hummelshoj5, Emma Cox6, Laura Beatty7, Patrick Chien8, Mayank Madhra9, Katy Vincent10, Andrew W Horne11. 1. MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4TJ, UK. 2. Usher Institute, Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh NINE Edinburgh BioQuarter, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK. 3. NHS Grampian, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK. 4. Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, School of Medicine, Nottingham Health Sciences Partners, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK. 5. Endometriosis.org, London, UK. 6. Endometriosis UK, London, UK. 7. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, G51 4TF, UK. 8. Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK. 9. NHS Lothian, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK. 10. Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. 11. MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4TJ, UK. andrew.horne@ed.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endometriosis (where endometrial-like tissue is found outside the uterus) affects ~ 176 million women worldwide and can lead to debilitating pelvic pain. Three subtypes of endometriosis exist, with ~ 80% of women having superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE). Endometriosis is diagnosed by laparoscopy and, if SPE is found, gynaecologists usually remove it surgically. However, many women get limited pain relief from surgical removal of SPE. We plan to undertake a future large trial where women who have only SPE found at initial laparoscopy are randomly allocated to have surgical removal (excision or ablation) of SPE, or not. Ultimately, we want to determine whether surgical removal improves overall symptoms and quality of life, or whether surgery is of no benefit, exacerbates symptoms, or even causes harm. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to determine what proportion of women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy will agree to randomisation. The secondary objectives are to determine if there are differences in key prognostic parameters between eligible women that agree to be randomised and those that decline; how many women having laparoscopy for investigation of chronic pelvic pain are eligible for the trial; the range of treatment effects and variability in outcomes and the most acceptable methods of recruitment, randomisation and assessment tools. METHODS: We will recruit up to 90 women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy over a 9-month recruitment period in four Scottish hospitals and randomise them 1:1 to either diagnostic laparoscopy alone (with a sham port to achieve blinding of the allocation) or surgical removal of endometriosis. Baseline characteristics, e.g. age, index of social deprivation, ethnicity, and intensity/duration of pain will be collected. Participants will be followed up by online questionnaires assessing pain, physical and emotional function at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. DISCUSSION: Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of surgery for endometriosis may be challenging because of preconceived ideas about treatment success amongst patients and clinicians. We have designed this study to assess feasibility of recruitment and to inform the design of our future definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincicalTrials.gov, NCT04081532 STATUS: Recruiting.
BACKGROUND: Endometriosis (where endometrial-like tissue is found outside the uterus) affects ~ 176 million women worldwide and can lead to debilitating pelvic pain. Three subtypes of endometriosis exist, with ~ 80% of women having superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE). Endometriosis is diagnosed by laparoscopy and, if SPE is found, gynaecologists usually remove it surgically. However, many women get limited pain relief from surgical removal of SPE. We plan to undertake a future large trial where women who have only SPE found at initial laparoscopy are randomly allocated to have surgical removal (excision or ablation) of SPE, or not. Ultimately, we want to determine whether surgical removal improves overall symptoms and quality of life, or whether surgery is of no benefit, exacerbates symptoms, or even causes harm. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to determine what proportion of women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy will agree to randomisation. The secondary objectives are to determine if there are differences in key prognostic parameters between eligible women that agree to be randomised and those that decline; how many women having laparoscopy for investigation of chronic pelvic pain are eligible for the trial; the range of treatment effects and variability in outcomes and the most acceptable methods of recruitment, randomisation and assessment tools. METHODS: We will recruit up to 90 women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy over a 9-month recruitment period in four Scottish hospitals and randomise them 1:1 to either diagnostic laparoscopy alone (with a sham port to achieve blinding of the allocation) or surgical removal of endometriosis. Baseline characteristics, e.g. age, index of social deprivation, ethnicity, and intensity/duration of pain will be collected. Participants will be followed up by online questionnaires assessing pain, physical and emotional function at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. DISCUSSION: Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of surgery for endometriosis may be challenging because of preconceived ideas about treatment success amongst patients and clinicians. We have designed this study to assess feasibility of recruitment and to inform the design of our future definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincicalTrials.gov, NCT04081532 STATUS: Recruiting.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ablation; Chronic pelvic pain; Excision; Feasibility trial; Placebo; Surgery
Authors: Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; John T Farrar; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Robert D Kerns; Gerold Stucki; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Daniel B Carr; Julie Chandler; Penney Cowan; Raymond Dionne; Bradley S Galer; Sharon Hertz; Alejandro R Jadad; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Susan Martin; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; Wendye Robbins; James P Robinson; Margaret Rothman; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; Joachim Wernicke; James Witter Journal: Pain Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: David J Beard; Marion K Campbell; Jane M Blazeby; Andrew J Carr; Charles Weijer; Brian H Cuthbertson; Rachelle Buchbinder; Thomas Pinkney; Felicity L Bishop; Jonathan Pugh; Sian Cousins; Ian A Harris; L Stefan Lohmander; Natalie Blencowe; Katie Gillies; Pascal Probst; Carol Brennan; Andrew Cook; Dair Farrar-Hockley; Julian Savulescu; Richard Huxtable; Amar Rangan; Irene Tracey; Peter Brocklehurst; Manuela L Ferreira; Jon Nicholl; Barnaby C Reeves; Freddie Hamdy; Samuel Cs Rowley; Jonathan A Cook Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-03-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Olafur S Palsson; William E Whitehead; Miranda A L van Tilburg; Lin Chang; William Chey; Michael D Crowell; Laurie Keefer; Anthony J Lembo; Henry P Parkman; Satish Sc Rao; Ami Sperber; Brennan Spiegel; Jan Tack; Stephen Vanner; Lynn S Walker; Peter Whorwell; Yunsheng Yang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: James M N Duffy; Kirana Arambage; Frederico J S Correa; David Olive; Cindy Farquhar; Ray Garry; David H Barlow; Tal Z Jacobson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-04-03