SBRT (Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy) vs. Surgery in High Risk Patients With Early Stage Lung Cancer
NCT ID: NCT02562027
Last Updated: 2021-04-08
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
217 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2015-09-11
2020-11-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Quality of Life Intervention to Inform Patient Decision-Making in Early-Stage Lung Cancer
NCT05292521
Surgery Versus Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
NCT05183932
Video-Assisted Surgery Followed by Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer and Poor Heart and Lung Function
NCT00002624
Using Imaging and Molecular Markers to Predict Tumor Response and Lung Toxicity in Lung Cancer
NCT00603057
Stereotactic Radiosurgery Followed by Wedge Resection in Treating Patients With Early Stage Peripheral Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
NCT02250378
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
As extension of above, a very real ongoing challenge that the investigators have evaluated within clinical practice is that current guidelines defining the high risk patient are subjective and prone to physician bias. A recent secondary analysis of clinical trial inclusion criteria for SBRT underscored this bias by demonstrating that many patients that were considered inoperable were perhaps reasonable surgical candidates. Based on standard pulmonary function tests the inoperable SBRT patients had a diffusion capacity 33% higher than the high risk surgical patients in ACOSOG Z4032. Conversely, stratification of high risk surgical patients within ACOSOG Z4032 trial identified an extremely high risk subset (median DLCO% 30%, FEV1% 39%) with a 90-day 3+ adverse event rate of 48% compared to the lowest risk subset (DLCO% 69%, FEV1% 56%) with a 90-day 3+ adverse event rate of only 24%. In the absence of a clinical trial or a prospective database, there is currently no objective algorithm to guide the assignment of surgery versus SBRT.
Attempts to objectively stratify risk within the surgical population have been challenging. Risk models based on the European Thoracic Database and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database are not yet robust enough to guide decision-making regarding treatment assignment or classification of the very high risk surgical patient where alternative therapies may be preferable. Unfortunately, one of the current limitations to stratifying these high risk patients is that these patients are followed by physicians in independent specialties. The STS Thoracic Surgical Database does not include patients that undergo SBRT therefore it is difficult to create an inclusive algorithm for operable and inoperable patients. A principle objective of the study is to create a validated risk model for treatment selection. This will greatly enhance the ability to counsel patients regarding their specific risks/benefit ratio for surgery or SBRT. This will improve informed decision making on the part of the patient, and remove much of the subjectivity of treatment selection. Inclusion of unique metrics such as HRQOL data will further bolster the benefit to the patient by making it more patient-centric, rather than focusing on cancer outcomes alone.
As the implementation of the Affordable HealthCare Act (AHCA) continues, physicians will experience additional pressure to cut costs while maintaining or improving the quality of care provided. The current fee-for-service system is often criticized for being compartmentalized and fragmented without well-defined incentives for quality improvement.
Initiatives of the AHCA have included efforts to test care models to reduce hospital associated conditions, bundled payment plans for care improvement, and shared savings programs for accountable care organizations whereby participating providers who meet certain quality standards share in any savings achieved for the Medicare program. These are just some of the efforts designed to rein in the cost of medical care while improving the transparency and quality of care. Pilot efforts involving bundling of payments for coronary artery bypass grafting resulted in Medicare savings of $40 million with simultaneous reduced in-hospital mortality. These types of initiatives are likely to become more commonplace in the United States as efforts to create new models of care to constrain cost are introduced.
With the stimulus of these initiatives for novel systems of healthcare delivery the investigators recognized that a model of bundled payment for treatment of stage I NSCLC may not only reduce overall costs associated with treatment of stage I lung cancer but potentially improve the quality of care provided. At Washington University the investigators have taken a preemptive measure to create an accountable care organization (ACO) between the Department of Radiation Oncology and the Department of Thoracic Surgery with a focused approach on the treatment of stage I NSCLC. Important components of this collaborative effort include a bundled payment system for episodes of care involving the treatment selection, implementation, and follow up care of patients with stage I lung cancer as well as prospective assessment of quality of care measures.
The impetus for the development of this unique collaboration between radiation oncology and thoracic surgery stems from the ongoing interest in improving the quality of care for patients with early stage NSCLC. The clinical research focus has been on determining the best treatment strategies for the significant number of patients with stage I lung cancer considered medically inoperable or high risk surgical candidates. In the aging population, pulmonary insufficiency, cardiac disease, as well as other comorbidities may preclude surgery or place patients at significant risk for complications after surgery. The evolution of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the medically inoperable population has resulted in relatively low local recurrence rates ranging from 3-20% with favorable overall and disease-free survival in inoperable patients with Stage I NSCLC.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NA
SINGLE_GROUP
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
High-risk NSCLC participants
* Baseline assessment of demographics and comorbidities
* Comorbidity scoring by interview and chart review: the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, and COMorbidities in Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease.
* Katz Activities of Daily Living: assessment of grip strength, walk speed, and activities of daily living
* HRQOL questionnaires will also be administered prior to treatment and then repeated throughout follow-up: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ) C30, EORTC QLQ-LC13, Modified Medical Research Council, EQ-5D, CES-D, and Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey.
* All questionnaire responses will be obtained with the use of a computer assisted interview system which can be used to collect data in person or through telephone interviews
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30
* 30 quality of life questions for the participant to answer
* The first 28 questions have answers that range from 1 (Not at All) to 4 (Very Much)
* The final 2 questions answers range from 1 (Very Poor) to 7 (Excellent)
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire LC-13
* 13 quality of life questions for the participant to answer
* The answers range from 1 (Not at All) to 4 (Very Much)
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
Modified Medical Research Council
* Participants is given 5 grades to choose from ranging from 0 to 4 and participant will choose grade
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
EQ-5D
* 5 headings with 5 statements and the participant will check the box that best describes how he or she feels that day
* The second part shows a scale ranging from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health) and the participant chooses the best number on the scale
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale
* 20 quality of life questions for the participant to answer
* Answers range from "Rarely or none of the time" to "Most or all of the time"
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey
* 19 quality of life questions for the participant to answer
* Answers from from 1 (None of the time) to 5 (All of the time)
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30
* 30 quality of life questions for the participant to answer
* The first 28 questions have answers that range from 1 (Not at All) to 4 (Very Much)
* The final 2 questions answers range from 1 (Very Poor) to 7 (Excellent)
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire LC-13
* 13 quality of life questions for the participant to answer
* The answers range from 1 (Not at All) to 4 (Very Much)
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
Modified Medical Research Council
* Participants is given 5 grades to choose from ranging from 0 to 4 and participant will choose grade
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
EQ-5D
* 5 headings with 5 statements and the participant will check the box that best describes how he or she feels that day
* The second part shows a scale ranging from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health) and the participant chooses the best number on the scale
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale
* 20 quality of life questions for the participant to answer
* Answers range from "Rarely or none of the time" to "Most or all of the time"
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey
* 19 quality of life questions for the participant to answer
* Answers from from 1 (None of the time) to 5 (All of the time)
* Collected at baseline, 3 months post-treatment, 6 months post-treatment, 12 months post-treatment, and 24 months post-treatment
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* At least 18 years of age.
* Ability to understand and willingness to sign an IRB approved written informed consent document (or that of legally authorized representative, if applicable).
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Varian Medical Systems
INDUSTRY
Washington University School of Medicine
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Cliff Robinson, M.D.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Washington University School of Medicine
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Washington University School of Medicine
St Louis, Missouri, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
201509035
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.