BackgroundPatients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) and favorable survival prognoses can benefit from radiation doses greater than 30Gy in 10 fractions in terms of improved local progression-free survival (LPFS) and overall survival (OS).Methods/designThis prospective study mainly investigates LPFS after precision radiotherapy (volumetric modulated arc therapy or stereotactic body radiotherapy) with 18 × 2.33Gy in 3.5 weeks. LPFS is defined as freedom from progression of motor deficits during radiotherapy and an in-field recurrence of MSCC following radiotherapy. The maximum relative dose allowed to the spinal cord is 101.5% of the prescribed dose, resulting in an equivalent dose in 2Gy-fractions (EQD2) for radiation myelopathy is 45.5Gy, which is below the tolerance dose of 50Gy according to the Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC). The EQD2 of this regimen for tumor cell kill is 43.1Gy, which is 33% higher than for 30Gy in 10 fractions (EQD2 = 32.5Gy). Primary endpoint is LPFS at 12 months after radiotherapy. Secondary endpoints include the effect of 18 × 2.33Gy on motor function, ambulatory status, sensory function, sphincter dysfunction, LPFS at other follow-up times, overall survival, pain relief, relief of distress and toxicity. Follow-up visits for all endpoints will be performed directly and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after radiotherapy. A total of 65 patients are required for the prospective part of the study. These patients will be compared to a historical control group of at least 235 patients receiving conventional radiotherapy with 10x3Gy in 2 weeks.DiscussionIf precision radiotherapy with 18 × 2.33Gy results in significantly better LPFS than 10x3Gy of conventional radiotherapy, this regimen should be strongly considered for patients with MSCC and favorable survival prognoses.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04043156. Registered 30-07-2019.
Background Radiotherapy of head-and-neck cancer can be associated with significant toxicities including dermatitis and oral mucositis. Severe toxicities may require interruptions of the radiation treatment associated with impairment of the patients’ prognoses. This study will investigate whether the addition of a reminder app to standard care can reduce dermatitis and oral mucositis rates during radiotherapy in these patients. Methods This randomized trial compares standard care supported by a reminder app (Arm A) to standard care alone (Arm B) with respect to grade ≥ 2 radiation dermatitis and oral mucositis at 60 Gy of radiotherapy, the minimum planned dose for patients receiving definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced head- and-neck cancer. Moreover, radiation-induced dermatitis and oral mucositis grade ≥ 3 at 60 Gy and both grade ≥ 2 and grade ≥ 3 at the end of radiation treatment (EOT) will be evaluated, as well as quality of life and pain. According to sample size calculations, 80 patients are required per arm within the full analysis set. Taking into account that 5% of patients will not qualify for full analysis set, 168 patients should be randomized. The impact of the reminder app will be considered clinically relevant, if the rates of grade ≥ 2 radiation dermatitis (primary endpoint) and oral mucositis (secondary endpoint) can be reduced by 20%. Discussion If the addition of a reminder app to standard care will lead to a significant reduction of radiation dermatitis and oral mucositis, it could become a helpful tool for patients with head-and-neck cancer during radiotherapy. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04110977). Registered on September 27, 2019. First patient is planned to be included in December 2019.
BackgroundThe aim of the present trial is to investigate a new option of skin protection in order to reduce the rate of grade ≥ 2 skin toxicity in patients receiving radiotherapy alone or radiochemotherapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head-and-neck (SCCHN).Methods / DesignThis is a randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group multi-center trial that compares the following treatments of radiation dermatitis in patients with head-and-neck cancer: Mepitel® Film (Arm A) vs. standard care (Arm B). The primary aim of this trial is to investigate the rate of patients experiencing grade ≥ 2 radiation dermatitis (according to Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.03) until 50 Gy of radiotherapy. Evaluation until 50 Gy of radiotherapy has been selected as the primary endpoint, since up to 50 Gy, the irradiated volume includes the primary tumor and the bilateral cervical and supraclavicular lymph nodes, and, therefore, is similar in all patients. After 50 Gy, irradiated volumes are very individual, depending on location and size of the primary tumor, involvement of lymph nodes, and the treatment approach (definitive vs. adjuvant). In addition, the following endpoints will be evaluated: Time to grade 2 radiation dermatitis until 50 Gy of radiotherapy, rate of patients experiencing grade ≥ 2 radiation dermatitis during radio(chemo)therapy, rate of patients experiencing grade ≥ 3 skin toxicity during radio(chemo)therapy, adverse events, quality of life, and dermatitis-related pain. Administration of Mepitel® Film will be considered to be clinically relevant, if the rate of grade ≥ 2 radiation dermatitis can be reduced from 85% to 65%.DiscussionIf administration of Mepitel® Film instead of standard care will be able to significantly reduce the rate of grade ≥ 2 radiation dermatitis, it could become the new standard of skin care in patients irradiated for SCCHN.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT03047174. Registered on 26th of January, 2017. First patient included on 9th of May, 2017.
BackgroundFor metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC), conventional radiotherapy with 10 × 3 Gy in 2 weeks results in better local progression-free survival (LPFS) than 5 × 4 Gy in 1 week. Since patients with MSCC are often significantly impaired, an overall treatment time of 1 week would be preferable if resulting in similar outcomes as longer programs. This may be achieved with 5 × 5 Gy in 1 week, since the biologically effective dose is similar to 10 × 3 Gy. It can be expected that 5 × 5 Gy (like 10 × 3) Gy results in better LPFS than 5 × 4 Gy in 1 week.Methods/DesignThis phase 2 study investigates LPFS after high-precision RT with 5 × 5 Gy in 1 week. LPFS is defined as freedom from both progression of motor deficits during RT and new or progressive motor deficits dur to an in-field recurrence of MSCC following RT. Considering the tolerance dose of the spinal cord, 5 × 5 Gy can be safely administered with high-precision radiotherapy such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Maximum dose to the spinal cord should not exceed 101.5% of the prescribed dose to keep the risk of radiation myelopathy below 0.03%. Primary endpoint is LPFS at 6 months following radiotherapy; secondary endpoints include motor function/ability to walk, sensory function, sphincter dysfunction, LPFS directly and 1 and 3 months following radiotherapy, overall survival, pain relief, quality of life and toxicity. Follow-up visits will be performed directly and at 1, 3 and 6 months following radiotherapy. After completion of this phase 2 study, patients will be compared to a historical control group receiving conventional radiotherapy with 5 × 4 Gy in 1 week. Forty-four patients will be included assuming 5 × 5 Gy will provide the same benefit in LPFS when compared to 5 × 4 Gy as reported for 10 × 3 Gy.DiscussionIf superiority regarding LPFS is shown for high-precision radiotherapy with 5 × 5 Gy when compared to conventional radiotherapy with 5 × 4 Gy, patients with MSCC would benefit from 5 × 5 Gy, since high LPFS rates could be achieved with 1 week of radiotherapy instead of 2 weeks (10 × 3 Gy).Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT03070431. Registered 27 February 2017.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.