Objective

Clinical studies of patients with bone sarcomas have been challenged by insufficient numbers at individual centres to draw valid conclusions. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether a five-day regimen of post-operative antibiotics, in comparison to a 24-hour regimen, decreases surgical site infections in patients undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower extremity primary bone tumours.

Aims

Advances in treatment have extended the life expectancy of patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD). Patients could experience more skeletal-related events (SREs) as a result of this progress. Those who have already experienced a SRE could encounter another local management for a subsequent SRE, which is not part of the treatment for the initial SRE. However, there is a noted gap in research on the rate and characteristics of subsequent SREs requiring further localized treatment, obligating clinicians to extrapolate from experiences with initial SREs when confronting subsequent ones. This study aimed to investigate the proportion of MBD patients developing subsequent SREs requiring local treatment, examine if there are prognostic differences at the initial treatment between those with single versus subsequent SREs, and determine if clinical, oncological, and prognostic features differ between initial and subsequent SRE treatments.

Objectives. As tumours of bone and soft tissue are rare, multicentre prospective collaboration is essential for meaningful research and evidence-based advances in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators encountered in large-scale collaborative research by orthopaedic oncological surgeons involved or interested in prospective multicentre collaboration. Methods. All surgeons who were involved, or had expressed an interest, in the ongoing Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss their experiences with collaborative research in this area. The discussion was digitally recorded, transcribed and anonymised. The transcript was analysed qualitatively, using an analytic approach which aims to organise the data in the language of the participants with little theoretical interpretation. Results. The 13 surgeons who participated in the discussion represented orthopaedic oncology practices from seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Denmark, United States and Canada). Four categories and associated themes emerged from the discussion: the need for collaboration in the field of orthopaedic oncology due to the rarity of the tumours and the need for high level evidence to guide treatment; motivational factors for participating in collaborative research including establishing proof of principle, learning opportunity, answering a relevant research question and being part of a collaborative research community; barriers to participation including funding, personal barriers, institutional barriers, trial barriers, and administrative barriers and facilitators for participation including institutional facilitators, leadership, authorship, trial set-up, and the support of centralised study coordination. Conclusions. Orthopaedic surgeons involved in an ongoing international randomised controlled trial (RCT) were motivated by many factors to participate. There were a number of barriers to and facilitators for their participation. There was a collective sense of fatigue experienced in overcoming these barriers, which was mirrored by a strong collective sense of the importance of, and need for, collaborative research in this field. The experiences were described as essential educational first steps to advance collaborative studies in this area. Knowledge gained from this study will inform the development of future large-scale collaborative research projects in orthopaedic oncology. Cite this article: J. S. Rendon, M. Swinton, N. Bernthal, M. Boffano, T. Damron, N. Evaniew, P. Ferguson, M. Galli Serra, W. Hettwer, P. McKay, B. Miller, L. Nystrom, W. Parizzia, P. Schneider, A. Spiguel, R. Vélez, K. Weiss, J. P. Zumárraga, M. Ghert. Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology: A qualitative study. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–314. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2016-0192.R1

Objectives. The diagnosis of surgical site infection following endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone tumours is frequently a subjective diagnosis. Large clinical trials use blinded Central Adjudication Committees (CACs) to minimise the variability and bias associated with assessing a clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to determine the level of inter-rater and intra-rater agreement in the diagnosis of surgical site infection in the context of a clinical trial. Materials and Methods. The Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial CAC adjudicated 29 non-PARITY cases of lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction. The CAC members classified each case according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) criteria for surgical site infection (superficial, deep, or organ space). Combinatorial analysis was used to calculate the smallest CAC panel size required to maximise agreement. A final meeting was held to establish a consensus. Results. Full or near consensus was reached in 20 of the 29 cases. The Fleiss kappa value was calculated as 0.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.53), or moderate agreement. The greatest statistical agreement was observed in the outcome of no infection, 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.72, substantial agreement). Panelists reached a full consensus in 12 of 29 cases and near consensus in five of 29 cases when CDC criteria were used (superficial, deep or organ space). A stable maximum Fleiss kappa of 0.46 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.35) at CAC sizes greater than three members was obtained. Conclusions. There is substantial agreement among the members of the PARITY CAC regarding the presence or absence of surgical site infection. Agreement on the level of infection, however, is more challenging. Additional clinical information routinely collected by the prospective PARITY trial may improve the discriminatory capacity of the CAC in the parent study for the diagnosis of infection. Cite this article: J. Nuttall, N. Evaniew, P. Thornley, A. Griffin, B. Deheshi, T. O’Shea, J. Wunder, P. Ferguson, R. L. Randall, R. Turcotte, P. Schneider, P. McKay, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. The inter-rater reliability of the diagnosis of surgical site infection in the context of a clinical trial. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:347–352. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.58.BJR-2016-0036.R1

Objectives

Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) have been available to the orthopaedic community for more than a decade, with little improvement in service provision to this increasingly large patient group. Improvements in adjuvant and neo-adjuvant treatments have increased both the number and overall survival of patients living with MBD. As a consequence the incidence of complications of MBD presenting to surgeons has increased and is set to increase further. The British Orthopaedic Oncology Society (BOOS) are to publish more revised detailed guidelines on what represents ‘best practice’ in managing patients with MBD. This article is designed to coincide with and publicise new BOOS guidelines and once again champion the cause of patients with MBD.