- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT07227792
Tongue-out Radiation Therapy (TORT) for the Mitigation of Radiotherapy-related Toxicities in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
- Name: Samantha Demko, RN
- Phone Number: 412-623-1400
- Email: albesl@upmc.edu
Study Contact Backup
- Name: Brieanna Marino, MS
- Phone Number: 4126478258
- Email: rowlesbm@upmc.edu
Study Locations
-
-
Pennsylvania
-
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, 15232
- Recruiting
- UPMC Hillman Cancer Center
-
Contact:
- Samantha Demko, RN
- Phone Number: 412-623-1400
- Email: albesl@upmc.edu
-
Contact:
- Brieanna Marino, MS
- Phone Number: 4126478258
- Email: rowlesbm@upmc.edu
-
Principal Investigator:
- Yvonne Mowery, MD
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Must have histologically or cytologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx (cT0-4, N0-3, M0-1).
Patients with metastatic disease will be included if the following criteria are met:
- Definitive RT dose is planned for the primary site
- The number of metastatic lesions is ≤5
- All metastatic lesions are confined to a single organ (e.g., lung)
- Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≤ 2
Female subjects of childbearing potential must not be pregnant or breastfeeding at screening.
Female subjects are considered to be of childbearing potential unless one of the following criteria is met:
o Permanent sterilization (hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, or bilateral oophorectomy) or documented postmenopausal status (defined as 12 months of amenorrhea in a woman > 45 years-of-age in the absence of other biological or physiological causes. Note: Documentation may include review of medical records, medical examination, or medical history interview by study site staff.
- Female subjects of childbearing potential must utilize an appropriate method of birth control such as hormonal methods (oral, injectable, implant, skin patch, vaginal ring), intrauterine devices, barrier methods (consistent use of male/female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps), surgical methods (vasectomy, tubal ligation), or true abstinence.
- Must be able to comfortably protrude tongue in the treatment position for at least 1 minute.
- Must have the ability to understand and the willingness to sign a written informed consent document.
- Must be willing to comply with all study procedures.
- Must be able to complete patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires in English.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients with T1-T2 N0 glottic cancer (i.e., planned to undergo RT to the larynx only)
- Posterior pharyngeal wall primary tumor
- Widely metastatic disease
- Surgical resection of the primary tumor
- Induction chemotherapy or immunotherapy prior to planned radiotherapy
- Prior head and neck radiotherapy
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: N/A
- Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Tongue-out radiation therapy (TORT)
A treatment positioning technique for patients with head and neck tumors at particular subsites (e.g., oropharynx, larynx, hypopharynx).
Protruding the tongue, i.e. "tongue-out" position, during pre-treatment simulation and subsequent treatment induces anatomical changes that facilitate decreased radiation dose to the oral tongue and PCM.
All patients will be treated with IMRT.
All IMRT techniques, including static field IMRT, helical IMRT (Tomotherapy), and VMAT are allowed.
|
The high-risk PTV will contain the primary tumor and any lymph nodes confirmed or suspected to harbor metastatic disease based on imaging findings, pathology reports, and/or clinical exam. Dose to the high-risk PTV must be 70.0 Gy at 2.0 Gy per fraction. The intermediate-risk PTV will contain areas considered to contain potential microscopic disease in close proximity to the primary tumor (GTV + 10 mm with adjustments per above based on anatomic boundaries or air) and the entire cervical lymph node level(s) corresponding to any lymph nodes confirmed or suspected to harbor metastatic disease. Dose to intermediate-risk PTV must be 63 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction. The low-risk PTV will contain any cervical lymph node levels felt to be potentially harbor microscopic disease but with negative imaging and/or clinical findings. The exact cervical lymph node levels included in the low-risk PTV should be based on Tables 3-5. Dose to the low-risk PTV must be 56 Gy at 1.6 Gy per fraction. |
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Eating Assessment Tool 10 (EAT-10)
Time Frame: At Baseline
|
Mean difference in Eating Assessment Tool 10 (EAT-10) total scores between patients enrolled on this prospective study and matched retrospective controls.
EAT-10 screens for dysphagia and aspiration risk.
Total score ranges 0 - 40.
Patients rate each question on a scale of 0 (no problem) to 4 (severe problem) regarding, weight loss, inability to go out for meals, increased swallowing effort, pain while swallowing, reduced pleasure while eating, bolus sensation, coughing, and stress when swallowing.
Score of 15 or more means patient is at risk for aspiration.
Follow up with a full dysphagia assessment and introduce safe swallowing strategies and a modified diet, as needed.
Score of 16 or less means patient may not be at risk for aspiration and follow up with a full dysphagia assessment only if symptomatic.
|
At Baseline
|
|
Eating Assessment Tool 10 (EAT-10)
Time Frame: At 6 weeks post-treatment
|
Mean difference in Eating Assessment Tool 10 (EAT-10) total scores between patients enrolled on this prospective study and matched retrospective controls.
EAT-10 screens for dysphagia and aspiration risk.
Total score ranges 0 - 40.
Patients rate each question on a scale of 0 (no problem) to 4 (severe problem) regarding, weight loss, inability to go out for meals, increased swallowing effort, pain while swallowing, reduced pleasure while eating, bolus sensation, coughing, and stress when swallowing.
Score of 15 or more means patient is at risk for aspiration.
Follow up with a full dysphagia assessment and introduce safe swallowing strategies and a modified diet, as needed.
Score of 16 or less means patient may not be at risk for aspiration and follow up with a full dysphagia assessment only if symptomatic.
|
At 6 weeks post-treatment
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Eating Assessment Tool 10 (EAT-10)
Time Frame: At 58 weeks post treatment
|
Mean difference between EAT-10 scores post-RT for the prospective TORT patients and matched historical controls at this timepoint.
EAT-10 screens for dysphagia and aspiration risk.
Total score ranges 0 - 40.
Patients rate each question on a scale of 0 (no problem) to 4 (severe problem) regarding, weight loss, inability to go out for meals, increased swallowing effort, pain while swallowing, reduced pleasure while eating, bolus sensation, coughing, and stress when swallowing.
Score of 15 or more means patient is at risk for aspiration.
Follow up with a full dysphagia assessment and introduce safe swallowing strategies and a modified diet, as needed.
Score of 16 or less means patient may not be at risk for aspiration and follow up with a full dysphagia assessment only if symptomatic.
|
At 58 weeks post treatment
|
|
Change in Eating Assessment Tool 10 (EAT-10) Scores
Time Frame: At Baseline and 6 weeks post-treatment
|
Mean change in EAT-10 scores post-RT for the prospective TORT patients and matched historical controls.
EAT-10 screens for dysphagia and aspiration risk.
Total score ranges 0 - 40.
Patients rate each question on a scale of 0 (no problem) to 4 (severe problem) regarding, weight loss, inability to go out for meals, increased swallowing effort, pain while swallowing, reduced pleasure while eating, bolus sensation, coughing, and stress when swallowing.
Score of 15 or more means patient is at risk for aspiration.
Follow up with a full dysphagia assessment and introduce safe swallowing strategies and a modified diet, as needed.
Score of 16 or less means patient may not be at risk for aspiration and follow up with a full dysphagia assessment only if symptomatic.
|
At Baseline and 6 weeks post-treatment
|
|
Change in Eating Assessment Tool 10 (EAT-10) Scores
Time Frame: At Baseline and 58 weeks post treatment
|
Mean change in EAT-10 scores between for the prospective TORT patients and matched historical controls.
EAT-10 screens for dysphagia and aspiration risk.
Total score ranges 0 - 40.
Patients rate each question on a scale of 0 (no problem) to 4 (severe problem) regarding, weight loss, inability to go out for meals, increased swallowing effort, pain while swallowing, reduced pleasure while eating, bolus sensation, coughing, and stress when swallowing.
Score of 15 or more means patient is at risk for aspiration.
Follow up with a full dysphagia assessment and introduce safe swallowing strategies and a modified diet, as needed.
Score of 16 or less means patient may not be at risk for aspiration and follow up with a full dysphagia assessment only if symptomatic.
|
At Baseline and 58 weeks post treatment
|
|
University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UW-QOL)
Time Frame: At 6 weeks post-treatment
|
Mean difference between UW-QOL swallowing scores post-RT for the prospective TORT patients and matched historical controls at this timepoint.
Self-administered UW-QOL measures health and quality of life over prior 7 days.
12 domain-specific questions include a patient's evaluation of the following: pain, appearance, activity, recreation, swallowing, chewing, speech, shoulder, taste, saliva, mood, and anxiety.
The UW-QOL domains are based upon discrete ordinal responses.
Scoring is scaled to so that a score of 0 represents the worst possible response, and a score of 100 represents the best possible response.
Scoring is scaled in equal stages from 0 to 100 to reflect the number of possible responses.
|
At 6 weeks post-treatment
|
|
Change in QoL per University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UW-QOL)
Time Frame: At Baseline and 6 weeks post-treatment
|
Mean change in UW-QOL swallowing scores for the prospective TORT patients and matched historical controls.
Self-administered UW-QOL measures health and quality of life over prior 7 days.
12 domain-specific questions include a patient's evaluation of the following: pain, appearance, activity, recreation, swallowing, chewing, speech, shoulder, taste, saliva, mood, and anxiety.
The UW-QOL domains are based upon discrete ordinal responses.
Scoring is scaled to so that a score of 0 represents the worst possible response, and a score of 100 represents the best possible response.
Scoring is scaled in equal stages from 0 to 100 to reflect the number of possible responses.
|
At Baseline and 6 weeks post-treatment
|
|
Difference in radiation doses - oral tongue
Time Frame: Up to 38 months
|
Mean difference in radiation doses (number of Gy) to the oral tongue as measured in radiation treatment planning software between TORT and non-TORT plans for the same patients.
|
Up to 38 months
|
|
Difference in radiation doses - pharyngeal
Time Frame: Up to 38 moonths
|
Mean difference in radiation doses (number of Gy) to the pharyngeal constrictors muscles as measured in radiation treatment planning software between TORT and non-TORT plans for the same patients.
|
Up to 38 moonths
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Yvonne Mowery, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimated)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Other Study ID Numbers
- HCC 25-085
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
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.