Reduction of Pain Symptoms With Stereotactic Radiotherapy on Bone Metastases (PREST)

PREST: Pain REduction With Bone Metastases STereotactic Radiotherapy: A Phase III Randomized Multicentric Trial

Interventional study without medicinal, randomized 1: 1 open-label, multicenter, phase 3 to evaluate the response in terms of reduction of pain symptomatology from bone metastases, comparing the conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) administered in conventional fractionation vs. extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) administered with concomitant integrated simultaneous boost (Simultaneous Integrated Boost-SIB)

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Palliative antalgic oncological treatments, e.g. For patients in the chronic-evolutionary phase of the disease with need for pain control, are a serious problem from the point of view: management, clinical and scientific research. However, they are affecting an ever-increasing volume of patients due to the increased incidence of cancer in all its phases and the potential chronicity of illness linked to new therapies.

The use of palliative anti-radiation radiotherapy treatments potentially involves up to 40% of patients in a Radiotherapy Center. Radiotherapy is commonly used in palliative treatment of symptomatic bone metastases (Furfari A, 2017) being an effective treatment to improve symptoms and consequently improve the quality of life (QoL) of these patients. Due to the peculiar characteristics of the patients who need these treatments, scientific research aimed at optimizing these therapies is a need for assistance and even ethics.

Ideally, this treatment should be as short as possible to re-direct them to systemic therapies or to home care or long-term care systems (e.g.: Hospice). In order to deliver a clinically effective dose in a short period of time, hypofractionated regimens must be used. Stereotactic radiotherapy is a type of radiotherapy that allows to deliver a high equivalent biological dose in a highly conformed manner, with a favorable toxicity profile (Correa RJ, 2016), and generally in a few fractions. The possibility of using special techniques such as stereotactic radiotherapy has been investigated in several phase 2 studies, in terms of symptom response with good results at 3 months (van der Velden JM, 2016) (Murai T1, 2014) (Braam P , 2016) (Deodato F, 2014) (Ryu S, 2014). Further studies have suggested, in order to better manage the toxicity profile linked to the hypofractioned regimen, the possibility of using a hypofractionated regimen over the entire bone compartment and going to over-dose with a stereotaxic regimen only the macroscopically visible disease to the instrumental examinations. In particular, in patients with favorable prognostic scores, this regimen would improve the possible onset of acute and late complications. Although there are indications in the literature (generated by the Consensus Conference) about the radiation treatment schedules to be preferred, there is no globally coded and clinically applied therapeutic prescription standard (Chow E1 & Party, 2012). The most commonly applied conventional radiation treatment schedules include: i) 8 Gy in 1 therapy session; ii) 20 Gy in 5 therapy sessions; iii) 30 Gy in 10 therapy sessions.

With the same pain control, multiple fractionation boards report, according to some authors, better symptom control over time and are therefore very often preferred for patients with a prognosis> 6 months. Routine use of prognostic scores to characterize life expectancy and define the most appropriate treatment regimen is very rarely used in everyday clinical practice.

Modern oncology radiotherapy can take advantage of advanced technologies and exploit the personalization of treatments. To date, some randomized trials are underway investigating the role of stereotactic radiotherapy for these patients compared to conventional approaches, but not all of them use adequate personalization of treatment. Furthermore, none of the ongoing and currently registered trials analyzes the "ii) 20 Gy in 5 treatment sessions" versus stereotactic in the direct comparison between two single randomized arms. The aim of this randomized multicenter prospective trial study is to evaluate the pain control effectiveness of an unconventional fractionation delivered with the most innovative stereotactic technique approach available in this clinical scenario against the conventional one; enrollment of patients will be specifically selected with prognosis> 6 months according to the Mizumoto score (Mizumoto M, 2008) and structural stability defined according to Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) <7, with indication to radiotherapy on bone metastases. Highlights of this study include: the high level of treatment customization for both accurate selection and ultraconformed radiation therapy planning; the reduction in the number of sessions to which the patient must be subjected, which reduces his discomfort; the approach innovation; the location of the study group (multicentric, in the Italian panorama) in a central position in the international scenario of the specific sector. The results of this trial are potentially "practice-changing".

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

330

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

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

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

1 year and older (Child, Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients diagnosed with spinal bone metastases from solid, uncomplicated tumor
  • Established primary or secondary tumor histology related to the treatment lesion
  • Patients aged> 18 years
  • Obtaining informed consent
  • ECOG 0-2
  • Symptomatic patients (NRS> = 4) at the treatment site
  • Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) <7
  • Prognosis> 6 months according to Mizumoto Prognostic Score (i.e. Class A and B)
  • Spinal metastases verified at MRI including the sites to be enrolled
  • No more than 3 non-contiguous spinal segments (e.g. separated by at least two metamers) involved in the study

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Impossibility to assign specific NRS for each CTV to be enrolled
  • Impossibility to express autonomous consent to therapies
  • Pregnancy
  • Patient in Hospice or with prognosis <6 months
  • Unavailability forecast for 3 month follow-up
  • Absence of MRI pre-treatment study
  • Impossibility to maintain the treatment position for SBRT
  • Previous radiotherapy at the same site or at the level of adjoining metamers (higher or lower than the one to be enrolled)
  • Radiometabolic therapy
  • Previous enrollment of the same patient for 3 irradiated lesions
  • Epidural compression of the spinal cord or of the cauda equina
  • Injuries affecting> 25% of the medullary canal and / or a distance <5 mm from the medulla or from the cauda
  • Injuries with indication of surgical stabilization
  • Chemotherapy or target therapy within the previous 7 days and 7 days after SBRT

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: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
No Intervention: Arm A
Standard Radiotherapy: 4 Gy x 5 fractions (fr) to Whole vertebra
Experimental: Arm B

Intervention: Radiotherapy with Simultaneous Integrated Boost-SIB on macroscopic metastases

Delivery of a boost on macroscopic secondary lesion with Simultaneous Integrated Boost technique according this schedule:

- 5 Gy x 3 fr (Whole Vertebra) + SIB 10 Gy x 3 fr on the macroscopic disease Gross Tumor Volume - (GTV)

Delivery of a boost on macroscopic secondary lesion with Simultaneous Integrated Boost technique according this schedule:

- 5 Gy x 3 fr (Whole Vertebra) + SIB 10 Gy x 3 fr on the macroscopic disease Gross Tumor Volume - (GTV)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain control [EFFICACY and PAIN]
Time Frame: 3 months

Pain control measured with Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score, a 11-point scale for patient self-reporting of pain.

NRS score presents a total range between 0 (no pain) and 10 maximum pain.

NRS subscale are the sequent:

  • 0: no pain [better outcome ]
  • 1-3: mild pain
  • 4-6: moderate pain
  • 7-10 severe pain [worse outcome]
3 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain control duration [EFFICACY and PAIN]
Time Frame: 12 months after end of radiotherapy
Interval from the end of the RT to the relapse of the symptom
12 months after end of radiotherapy
Local control [EFFICACY]
Time Frame: At 3, 6 and 12 months from the end of radiotherapy
Control of local disease with diagnostic exams according to RECIST 1.1 Criteria
At 3, 6 and 12 months from the end of radiotherapy
Symptom Progression Free Survival (SPFS) [EFFICACY and PAIN]
Time Frame: 12 months after end of radiotherapy
Interval from the end of radiotherapy and progressive disease with symptoms according to the criteria of Chow et al. in 2012
12 months after end of radiotherapy
Progression-free survival - PFS [EFFICACY]
Time Frame: 12 months
Interval from the end of radiotherapy and new disease progression
12 months
Overall survival [EFFICACY]
Time Frame: 12 months
Interval between the end of radiotherapy and death
12 months
Quality of Life (QoL) [EFFICACY and QUALITY OF LIFE]
Time Frame: At first visit, 1 month and 3 months after the end of radiotherapy
QoL score according to European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC): QLQ-C15-PAL
At first visit, 1 month and 3 months after the end of radiotherapy
Rate of retreatments [EFFICACY]
Time Frame: 12 months after end of radiotherapy
Interval from the end of the RT to the start of retreatment
12 months after end of radiotherapy

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Francesco Cellini, MD, Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCCS - Roma

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

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 (Anticipated)

July 1, 2019

Primary Completion (Actual)

July 1, 2019

Study Completion (Anticipated)

December 28, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 31, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 22, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

July 24, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

July 5, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 1, 2019

Last Verified

July 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

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 Bone Metastases

Clinical Trials on Simultaneous Integrated Boost-SIB on macroscopic metastases

Subscribe