A Randomized Trial of External Beam Radiotherapy Versus Cryoablation in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer

July 16, 2008 updated by: University of Calgary

A Randomized Trial of External Beam Radiotherapy Versus Cryoablation in Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

A trial to determine if cryoablation is as effective as radiation in the treatment of men with localized prostate cancer.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Detailed Description

Men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to cryoablation or external beam radiotherapy (median dose 68 Gy). All patients received neoadjuvant antiandrogen therapy. The primary endpoint was disease progression at 36 months based on a trifecta definition of failure: (a) radiological evidence of metastatic disease or b) initiation of further antineoplastic therapy or c) biochemical failure). Two definitions of biochemical failure were used: 1) rising PSA with a final value >1.0 ng/mL and 2) rise above PSA nadir + 2 ng/mL. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, disease-specific survival, and positive prostate biopsy at 36 months.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

244

Phase

  • Phase 3

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Alberta
      • Calgary, Alberta, Canada
        • Tom Baker Cancer Center

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

Male

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Clinically localized prostate cancer
  • PSA < 20ng/ml
  • Negative bone scan

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous TURP
  • Previous hormone therapy

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
No evidence of disease progression (NEDP) at 36 months
Time Frame: 36 months
36 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
Prostate biopsy status
Time Frame: 36 months post treatment
36 months post treatment

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Bryan Donnelly, MD, Tom Baker Cancer Center

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

December 1, 1997

Study Completion (Actual)

April 1, 2007

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 20, 2007

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 20, 2007

First Posted (Estimate)

June 21, 2007

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

July 17, 2008

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 16, 2008

Last Verified

July 1, 2008

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 9716 (Other Identifier: Fred Hutch/University of Washington Cancer Consortium)

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Prostate Cancer

Clinical Trials on Cryoablation and External Beam Radiation

3
Subscribe