Diese Seite wurde automatisch übersetzt und die Genauigkeit der Übersetzung wird nicht garantiert. Bitte wende dich an die englische Version für einen Quelltext.

A Translational Study of Bevacizumab in Participants With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (ASCENT)

17. August 2018 aktualisiert von: Hoffmann-La Roche

An Australian Translational Study to Evaluate the Prognostic Role of Inflammatory Markers in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Bevacizumab (Avastin™)

This open-label, prospective, single-arm, multicenter study will evaluate the relationship of the markers of inflammation and progression-free survival (PFS) in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. The study consists of two phases: Phase A treatment: oral capecitabine plus infusional oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab, or modified infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin (LV) and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) plus bevacizmab administered until first disease progression. Participants will then continue with Phase B treatment: infusional 5-FU, LV and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab until second disease progression. The anticipated time on study treatment is 4 years.

Studienübersicht

Status

Abgeschlossen

Bedingungen

Intervention / Behandlung

Studientyp

Interventionell

Einschreibung (Tatsächlich)

128

Phase

  • Phase 4

Kontakte und Standorte

Dieser Abschnitt enthält die Kontaktdaten derjenigen, die die Studie durchführen, und Informationen darüber, wo diese Studie durchgeführt wird.

Studienorte

  • Australien
    • Australian Capital Territory
      • Garran, Australian Capital Territory, Australien, 2605
        • Canberra Hospital
    • New South Wales
      • Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australien, 2560
        • Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre
      • Camperdown, New South Wales, Australien, 2050
        • Chris O'Brien Lifehouse
      • Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australien, 2010
        • St Vincent'S Hospital; Clinical Oncology
      • Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Australien, 2444
        • Mid North Coast Cancer Institute
      • St Leonards, New South Wales, Australien, 2065
        • Royal North Shore Hospital; Department of Medical Oncology
      • Sydney, New South Wales, Australien, 2076
        • Sydney Adventist Hospital; Clinical Trial Unit
    • Queensland
      • Brisbane, Queensland, Australien, 4029
        • Royal Brisbane Hospital
      • Rockhampton, Queensland, Australien, 4700
        • Rockhampton Hospital
      • Townsville, Queensland, Australien, 4812
        • The Townsville Hospital; Townsville Cancer Centre
    • South Australia
      • Elizabeth Vale, South Australia, Australien, 5112
        • Lyell McEwin Hospital; Oncology Clinical Trials, Chemotherapy Day Unit
      • North Adelaide, South Australia, Australien, 5006
        • Calvary North Adelaide; North Adeliade Oncology Centre
    • Tasmania
      • Launceston, Tasmania, Australien, 7250
        • Launceston General Hospital
    • Victoria
      • Heidelberg, Victoria, Australien, 3084
        • Austin Hospital; Medical Oncology
      • St Albans, Victoria, Australien
        • Sunshine Hospital; Oncology Research
    • Western Australia
      • Murdoch, Western Australia, Australien, 6150
        • St John of God Murdoch Hospital; Oncology West
      • Subiaco, Western Australia, Australien, 6008
        • St John of God Hospital; Bendat Cancer Centre

Teilnahmekriterien

Forscher suchen nach Personen, die einer bestimmten Beschreibung entsprechen, die als Auswahlkriterien bezeichnet werden. Einige Beispiele für diese Kriterien sind der allgemeine Gesundheitszustand einer Person oder frühere Behandlungen.

Zulassungskriterien

Studienberechtigtes Alter

18 Jahre und älter (Erwachsene, Älterer Erwachsener)

Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige

Nein

Studienberechtigte Geschlechter

Alle

Beschreibung

Inclusion Criteria:

For resected primary tumor participants, and participants with primary tumor in situ:

  • Previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer and not a candidate for curative resection
  • World Health Organization (WHO) performance status of 0-1
  • Life expectancy of greater than or equal to (>/=) 3 months
  • Eligible for XELOX, mFOLFOX6, FOLFIRI and bevacizumab treatment in accordance with local standards of care and pharmaceutical benefits scheme guidelines

Additional inclusion criteria for participants with primary tumor in situ:

  • Intact primary tumor of the colon or the rectum not requiring surgical intervention prior to study start
  • Minimal or asymptomatic primary tumor

Exclusion Criteria:

Resected primary tumor participants, and participants with primary tumor in situ:

  • Previous chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer
  • Previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy less than 6 months prior to study start
  • Radiotherapy within 28 days prior to enrollment or not recovered from a radiotherapy
  • History of non-colorectal cancer (participants are eligible if disease-free for >/=5 years and the risk of recurrence is deemed low)
  • Presence of active inflammatory bowel disease
  • History of gastrointestinal perforations
  • Peritoneal disease
  • History of significant bleeding event
  • Significant vascular disease
  • Peripheral arterial thrombosis or other thrombotic event within 6 months before study start

Additional exclusion criteria for participants with primary tumor in situ:

  • Prior endoscopic management of the current tumor
  • Acute diverticulitis
  • Presence of intra-abdominal abscess
  • Active gastroduodenal ulcer

Studienplan

Dieser Abschnitt enthält Einzelheiten zum Studienplan, einschließlich des Studiendesigns und der Messung der Studieninhalte.

Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?

Designdetails

  • Hauptzweck: Behandlung
  • Zuteilung: N / A
  • Interventionsmodell: Einzelgruppenzuweisung
  • Maskierung: Keine (Offenes Etikett)

Waffen und Interventionen

Teilnehmergruppe / Arm
Intervention / Behandlung
Experimental: Bevacizumab: Phase A and Phase B
The trial will consist of 2 phases of treatment. Phase A: Participants will receive bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg intravenous (IV) infusion on Day 1 every 3 weeks in combination with XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg IV on Day 1 every 2 weeks in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluouracil) until first disease progression or occurrence of unmanageable toxicity. Phase B: Upon documented first disease progression, participants will continue receiving bevacizumab 5 mg/kg IV on Day 1 every 2 weeks in combination with FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluouracil) until second disease progression or occurrence of unmanageable toxicity. Phase B treatment should commence within 4 weeks of the date of documented first disease progression.
Arzneimittel: Oxaliplatin
Participants will receive oxaliplatin 85 milligrams per square meter (mg/m^2) IV infusion on Day 1 of every 2 weeks cycle during alternative Phase A treatment or 130 mg/m^2 on Day 1 of every 3 weeks cycle during Phase A treatment.
Arzneimittel: Capecitabine
Participants will receive capecitabine 1000 mg/m^2 per oral (PO) twice daily on Days 1-14 of 3 weeks cycle during Phase A treatment.
Arzneimittel: Bevacizumab
Participants will receive 7.5 mg/kg IV infusion on Day 1 every 3 weeks (Phase A treatment) or 5 mg/kg IV on Day 1 every 2 weeks (Alternative Phase A treatment and Phase B).
Andere Namen:
  • Avastin, RO4876646
Arzneimittel: Leucovorin
Participants will receive leucovorin 400 mg/m^2 IV on Day 1 every 2 weeks (Alternative Phase A treatment and Phase B). Investigators may elect to chose low dose of leucovorin (either 20 mg/m^2 or 50 mg total dose).
Arzneimittel: 5-Fluouracil
Participants will receive 5-fluouracil loading dose of 400 mg/m^2 IV on Day 1 followed by 2400 mg/m^2 continuous IV infusion over 46 hours Day 1 (Alternative Phase A treatment and Phase B).
Arzneimittel: Irinotecan
Participants will receive irinotecan 180 mg/m^2 IV on Day 1 every 2 weeks during Phase B treatment.

Was misst die Studie?

Primäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Association Between Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) [NLR ≤5 Versus NLR >5] and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed by Hazard Ratio
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
NLR was calculated from the laboratory values as the ratio of Neutrophils to Lymphocytes. PFS was defined as the time from the start of initial treatment to documentation of first disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. Disease progression was determined according to standard practice based on radiological, biochemical (carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]) or clinical factors. Determination of disease progression was to be unequivocal and was defined as any of the following: an unequivocal and clinically meaningful increase in the size of known tumors, the appearance of one or more new lesions, death due to disease without prior objective documentation of progression, elevated CEA accompanied by other radiological or clinical evidence of progression, or symptomatic deterioration. The association between NLR (NLR less than or equal to [≤] 5 vs greater than [>] 5) and PFS was reported as hazard ratio.
Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)

Sekundäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
PFS Until First Disease Progression as Assessed by the Investigator Based on Routine Clinical Practice: Phase A
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to first disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
PFS until first progression was defined as the time from the start of initial treatment to documentation of first disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. Disease progression was determined according to standard practice based on radiological, biochemical (CEA) or clinical factors. Determination of disease progression was to be unequivocal and was defined as any of the following: an unequivocal and clinically meaningful increase in the size of known tumors, the appearance of one or more new lesions, death due to disease without prior objective documentation of progression, elevated CEA accompanied by other radiological or clinical evidence of progression, or symptomatic deterioration. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate PFS.
Baseline up to first disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
PFS Until Second Disease Progression as Assessed by the Investigator Based on Routine Clinical Practice: Phase B
Zeitfenster: From the start of Phase B treatment to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
PFS in Phase B (PFS-B) was defined as the time from the start of Phase B treatment to documentation of second disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. Disease progression was determined according to standard practice based on radiological, biochemical (CEA) or clinical factors. Determination of disease progression was to be unequivocal and was defined as any of the following: an unequivocal and clinically meaningful increase in the size of known tumors, the appearance of one or more new lesions, death due to disease without prior objective documentation of progression, elevated CEA accompanied by other radiological or clinical evidence of progression, or symptomatic deterioration. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate PFS.
From the start of Phase B treatment to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Time to Failure of Strategy (TFS): Overall
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
TFS was defined as time from the start of initial treatment to documentation of first disease progression without entering Phase B, or second disease progression having entered Phase B. Disease progression was determined according to standard practice based on radiological, biochemical (CEA) or clinical factors. Determination of disease progression was to be unequivocal and was defined as any of the following: an unequivocal and clinically meaningful increase in the size of known tumors, the appearance of one or more new lesions, death due to disease without prior objective documentation of progression, elevated CEA accompanied by other radiological or clinical evidence of progression, or symptomatic deterioration. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate TFS.
Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Duration of Disease Control (DDC) as Assessed by the Investigator Based on Routine Clinical Practice: Overall
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
DDC was defined as PFS + PFS-B. In cases where a participant did not enter Phase B, then DDC was defined as PFS. PFS was defined as time from start of initial treatment to documentation of first disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PFS-B was time from start of Phase B treatment to documentation of second disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. Disease progression was determined according to standard practice based on radiological, biochemical (CEA) or clinical factors. Determination of disease progression was to be unequivocal and was defined as any of the following: an unequivocal and clinically meaningful increase in the size of known tumors, appearance of one or more new lesions, death due to disease without prior objective documentation of progression, elevated CEA accompanied by other radiological or clinical evidence of progression, or symptomatic deterioration. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate DDC.
Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Overall Survival (OS) From the Start of Treatment to Study Completion: Overall
Zeitfenster: Baseline until death or end of study (up to 4 years)
OS was defined as the time from the start of initial treatment to the date of death, regardless of the cause of death. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate OS.
Baseline until death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Survival Beyond First Disease Progression: Overall
Zeitfenster: Baseline until death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Survival beyond first progression was defined as the time from the date of first disease progression to death due to any cause. Disease progression was determined according to standard practice based on radiological, biochemical (CEA) or clinical factors. Determination of disease progression was to be unequivocal and was defined as any of the following: an unequivocal and clinically meaningful increase in the size of known tumors, the appearance of one or more new lesions, death due to disease without prior objective documentation of progression, elevated CEA accompanied by other radiological or clinical evidence of progression, or symptomatic deterioration. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate survival beyond first disease progression.
Baseline until death or end of study (up to 4 years)
OS: Phase B
Zeitfenster: From the start of Phase B treatment death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Overall Survival in Phase B was defined as the time from the start of treatment in Phase B to death due to any cause. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate OS.
From the start of Phase B treatment death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Percentage of Participants With Confirmed Complete or Partial Response as Assessed by the Investigator Based on Routine Clinical Practice: Phase A
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Percentage of participants with best overall response of confirmed complete response or partial response based on the investigator assessment of the response as per routine clinical practice was reported. The confirmation of response must be no less than 4 weeks after initial assessment.
Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Percentage of Participants With Confirmed Complete or Partial Response as Assessed by the Investigator Based on Routine Clinical Practice: Phase B
Zeitfenster: From the start of Phase B treatment to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Percentage of participants with best overall response of confirmed complete response or partial response based on the investigator assessment of the response as per routine clinical practice was reported. The confirmation of response must be no less than 4 weeks after initial assessment.
From the start of Phase B treatment to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Percentage of Participants With Confirmed Complete or Partial Response as Assessed by the Investigator Based on Routine Clinical Practice: Overall
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Percentage of participants with best overall response of confirmed complete response or partial response based on the investigator assessment of the response as per routine clinical practice was reported. The confirmation of response must be no less than 4 weeks after initial assessment.
Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Percentage of Participants Who Underwent Liver Resection: Overall
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
The results include percentage of participants who underwent potentially curative liver resection.
Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Association Between NLR (NLR ≤5 Versus NLR >5) and OS as Assessed by Hazard Ratio
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
NLR was calculated from the laboratory values as the ratio of Neutrophils to Lymphocytes. OS was defined as the time from the start of initial treatment to the date of death, regardless of the cause of death. The association between NLR (NLR ≤ 5 vs > 5) and OS was reported as hazard ratio.
Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Association Between NLR Normalization (First NLR Post-Baseline ≤5 Versus NLR >5) and PFS as Assessed by Hazard Ratio
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
NLR was calculated from laboratory values as ratio of Neutrophils to Lymphocytes. NLR normalization was assessed by adding first post-baseline measurement of NLR to the primary model. This is equivalent to testing whether first change in NLR is significantly associated with outcome. PFS was defined as time from start of initial treatment to documentation of first disease progression or death from any cause. Disease progression was determined according to standard practice based on radiological, biochemical (CEA) or clinical factors. Determination of disease progression was defined as: an unequivocal and clinically meaningful increase in size of known tumors, appearance of ≥1 new lesions, death due to disease without prior objective documentation of progression, elevated CEA accompanied by other radiological or clinical evidence of progression, or symptomatic deterioration.The association between NLR normalization (first NLR post-baseline ≤5 vs >5) and PFS was reported as hazard ratio.
Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Association Between Longitudinal NLR (Longitudinal NLR ≤5 Versus NLR >5) and PFS as Assessed by Hazard Ratio
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
NLR was calculated from the laboratory values as the ratio of Neutrophils to Lymphocytes. Longitudinal NLR was assessed by treating the NLR measurements taken over the time-course of treatment as a time-dependent covariate. PFS was defined as time from the start of initial treatment to documentation of first disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. Disease progression was determined according to standard practice based on radiological, biochemical (CEA) or clinical factors. Determination of disease progression was to be unequivocal and was defined as: an unequivocal and clinically meaningful increase in size of known tumors, appearance of one or more new lesions, death due to disease without prior objective documentation of progression, elevated CEA accompanied by other radiological or clinical evidence of progression, or symptomatic deterioration. The association between longitudinal NLR (longitudinal NLR ≤5 vs N>5) and PFS was reported as hazard ratio.
Baseline up to disease progression, death or end of study (up to 4 years)
Association Between Longitudinal NLR (Longitudinal NLR ≤5 Versus NLR >5) and OS as Assessed by Hazard Ratio
Zeitfenster: Baseline up to death or end of study (up to 4 years)
NLR was calculated from the laboratory values as the ratio of Neutrophils to Lymphocytes. Longitudinal NLR was assessed by treating the NLR measurements taken over the time-course of treatment as a time-dependent covariate. OS was defined as the time from the start of initial treatment to the date of death, regardless of the cause of death. The association between longitudinal NLR (longitudinal NLR ≤5 vs NLR >5) and OS was reported as hazard ratio.
Baseline up to death or end of study (up to 4 years)
European Quality of Life 5-Dimension (EuroQol-5D) Utility Score: Phase A
Zeitfenster: Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, end of treatment (EOT) (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
EQ-5D is a standardized generic preference based health related quality of life instrument. It records how one's health is "today" and consists of a descriptive system. The descriptive system is comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression. Each dimension on the EQ-5D involves a 3-point response scale which indicates the level of impairment (level 1 = no problem; level 2 = some or moderate problem[s] and level 3 = unable, or extreme problems). Level of problem reported in each EQ-5D dimension determines a unique health state which is converted into a weighted health state index by applying scores from EQ-5D preference weights elicited from general population samples. This generates a unique description of the subjects' health status, which is valued between 0 (representing death) and 1 (representing perfect health). Higher the score, the better the quality of life.
Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, end of treatment (EOT) (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
EuroQol-5D Utility Score: Phase B
Zeitfenster: Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
EQ-5D is a standardized generic preference based health related quality of life instrument. It records how one's health is "today" and consists of a descriptive system. The descriptive system is comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression. Each dimension on the EQ-5D involves a 3-point response scale which indicates the level of impairment (level 1 = no problem; level 2 = some or moderate problem[s] and level 3 = unable, or extreme problems). Level of problem reported in each EQ-5D dimension determines a unique health state which is converted into a weighted health state index by applying scores from EQ-5D preference weights elicited from general population samples. This generates a unique description of the subjects' health status, which is valued between 0 (representing death) and 1 (representing perfect health). Higher the score, the better the quality of life.
Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
Assessment of Quality of Life - Eight Dimensions (AQoL-8D) Global Utility Score: Phase A
Zeitfenster: Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
AQoL-8D provides a global utility score and comprised of 35 questions from which 8 dimensions (Independent Living, Life Satisfaction, Mental Health, Coping, Relationships, Self Worth, Pain, and Senses) are derived. Each of the 8 scales is calculated based on the answers to 3 questions. Each question is given an answer dependent utility score (0 [worst] to 1 [best]) and then these scores are combined using a multiplicative model to get the normalized scale score value, each scale ranging between 0.0 (representing death) and 1.0 (representing full health).
Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
AQoL-8D Global Utility Score: Phase B
Zeitfenster: Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
AQoL-8D provides a global utility score and consists of 8 separately scored dimensions including Independent Living, Life Satisfaction, Mental Health, Coping, Relationships, Self Worth, Pain, and Senses. Each of the 8 scales is calculated based on the answers to 3 questions. Each question is given an answer dependent utility score (0 [worst] to 1 [best]) and then these scores are combined using a multiplicative model to get the normalized scale score value, each scale ranging between 0.0 (representing death) and 1.0 (representing full health).
Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) Score: Phase A
Zeitfenster: Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
FACT-C is one part of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System, which comprehensively assesses the health-related QoL of cancer participants and participants with other chronic illnesses. It is composed of 27 items of the general version of the FACT-C as a general core QoL measure and has a disease-specific subscale containing 9 colorectal cancer-specific items. It consists of total 36 items, summarized to 5 subscales: physical well-being (7 items), functional well-being (7 items), social/family well-being (7 items); all 3 subscales range from 0 to 28, emotional well-being (6 items) range from 0 to 24, colorectal cancer subscale (9 items) range from 0 to 36; higher subscale score=better QoL. All single-item measures range from 0='Not at all' to 4='Very much'. Total possible score range: 0 to 144. High scale score represents a better QoL.
Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
FACT-C Score: Phase B
Zeitfenster: Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]
FACT-C is one part of the FACIT Measurement System, which comprehensively assesses the health-related QoL of cancer participants and participants with other chronic illnesses. It is composed of 27 items of the general version of the FACT-C as a general core QoL measure and has a disease-specific subscale containing 9 colorectal cancer-specific items. It consists of total 36 items, summarized to 5 subscales: physical well-being (7 items), functional well-being (7 items), social/family well-being (7 items); all 3 subscales range from 0 to 28, emotional well-being (6 items) range from 0 to 24, colorectal cancer subscale (9 items) range from 0 to 36; higher subscale score=better QoL. All single-item measures range from 0='Not at all' to 4='Very much'. Total possible score range: 0 to 144. High scale score represents a better QoL.
Baseline, every 8-9 weeks thereafter, EOT (30 days after disease progression [up to 4 years]), survival follow-up 12-weekly visits (up to 4 years) [Detailed time points are presented in the category titles]

Mitarbeiter und Ermittler

Hier finden Sie Personen und Organisationen, die an dieser Studie beteiligt sind.

Sponsor

Hoffmann-La Roche

Publikationen und hilfreiche Links

Die Bereitstellung dieser Publikationen erfolgt freiwillig durch die für die Eingabe von Informationen über die Studie verantwortliche Person. Diese können sich auf alles beziehen, was mit dem Studium zu tun hat.

Allgemeine Veröffentlichungen

Studienaufzeichnungsdaten

Diese Daten verfolgen den Fortschritt der Übermittlung von Studienaufzeichnungen und zusammenfassenden Ergebnissen an ClinicalTrials.gov. Studienaufzeichnungen und gemeldete Ergebnisse werden von der National Library of Medicine (NLM) überprüft, um sicherzustellen, dass sie bestimmten Qualitätskontrollstandards entsprechen, bevor sie auf der öffentlichen Website veröffentlicht werden.

Haupttermine studieren

Studienbeginn (Tatsächlich)

26. Juni 2012

Primärer Abschluss (Tatsächlich)

15. September 2016

Studienabschluss (Tatsächlich)

30. September 2016

Studienanmeldedaten

Zuerst eingereicht

27. April 2012

Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat

30. April 2012

Zuerst gepostet (Schätzen)

1. Mai 2012

Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen

Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)

22. Januar 2019

Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt

17. August 2018

Zuletzt verifiziert

1. August 2018

Mehr Informationen

Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie

Zusätzliche relevante MeSH-Bedingungen

Andere Studien-ID-Nummern

  • ML25753

Arzneimittel- und Geräteinformationen, Studienunterlagen

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Arzneimittelprodukt

Nein

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Geräteprodukt

Nein

Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .

Klinische Studien zur Kolorektale Neubildungen

Klinische Studien zur Oxaliplatin

Suchen Sie nach ähnlichen Studien

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

CROs by country

CROs in Ukraine

Bedingungen

Seltene Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

Nahrungsergänzungsmittel

Sponsor / Mitarbeiter

Standorte

Abonnieren