Robot-assisted Thoracic Approach Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy .
NCT ID: NCT04652180
Last Updated: 2023-03-01
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.
RECRUITING
NA
108 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-11-06
2026-12-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
If our hypothesis is proved correct, robot-assisted thoracic approach will result in a lower percentage of respiratory and overall postoperative complications, lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, but with at least similar oncologic outcomes and better postoperative quality of life compared with the open transthoracic esophagectomy (current standard).
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Robot-assisted Thoraco-laparoscopic Esophagectomy Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy
NCT01544790
Open Versus Laparoscopically-assisted Esophagectomy for Cancer
NCT00937456
Robot-assisted IVOR-LEWIS Esophagectomy
NCT03140189
A Observational Study to Compare Effectiveness and Safety of the Surgeries in Patients With Esophageal Cancer
NCT03428074
Traditional Three Incisions vs Minimally Invasive Thoracol-laparoscopic Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer
NCT02355249
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Surgical treatment is based on esophageal resection and reconstruction of digestive transit, as well as a correct lymphadenectomy. One of the techniques used is Ivor Lewis transthoracic esophagectomy. Classically, thoracic approach has been done by open approach (thoracotomy), with minimally invasive (laparoscopy) abdominal approach, a reality in our centre and in most European centres.
Postoperative comorbidity, specially respiratory complications, occur approximately in half of patients with esophagectomy with thoracotomy (open approach). Although current clinical trials have reported advantages over minimally invasive esophagectomy (MI), at the time, most esophageal surgery is performed by open approach. More studies are needed to clarify the role of minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer, so as to provide evidence about the comorbidity and effectiveness of surgical robot-assisted technique.
If our hypothesis is proved correct, robot-assisted thoracic approach will result in a lower percentage of respiratory and overall postoperative complications, lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, but with at least similar oncologic outcomes and better postoperative quality of life compared with the open transthoracic esophagectomy (current standard).
Objective: Evaluate the benefits, risks and cost-efficiency of Robot-assisted thoracic approach as a better approach to open transthoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy as treatment for esophageal cancer.
Study design: This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven monocentre randomized controlled parallel-group, phase IV, superiority trial.
Study populations: Patients (age ≥ 18) with histologically proven surgical resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated esophageal carcinoma or carcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) (Siewert I or II) candidate to Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy.
Intervention:108 patients will be randomly allocated to either A) Robot-assisted thoracic approach or B) Open transthoracic esophagectomy, in Ivor Lewis technique. In both groups the abdominal approach will be performed by laparoscopy (minimally invasive).
Patients will receive the following interventions:
Group A. Robot-assisted thoracic approach in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Group B. Open transthoracic approach (thoracotomy) in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
Both surgical techniques are used in our usual clinical practice of the General and Digestive Surgery Department of the Bellvitge University Hospital (HUB).
Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome is the percentage of respiratory and overall complications as stated by the modified Clavien-Dindo classification (MCDC).
Secondary outcomes are individual components of the primary endpoint (major and minor complications), (in hospital) mortality, R0 resections, oncologic outcomes, postoperative recovery, cost-effectiveness and quality of life.
Follow-up:84±3 days after hospital discharge.
NOTE: The project consists of a clinical trial and an extension study to assess the free-survival of 3 and 5 years from surgery.
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.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Robot-assisted thoracic approach in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy
Robot-assisted thoracic approach in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with gastric conduit formation. Abdominal approach will be performed by laparoscopy.
Esophagectomy
In this monocentre randomized controlled trial, we compare robot-assisted thoracic approach with conventional open transthoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
Open transthoracic approach in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy
Traditional open transthoracic esophagectomy with gastric conduit formation. Abdominal approach will be performed by laparoscopy.
Esophagectomy
In this monocentre randomized controlled trial, we compare robot-assisted thoracic approach with conventional open transthoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Esophagectomy
In this monocentre randomized controlled trial, we compare robot-assisted thoracic approach with conventional open transthoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
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
* Histologically proven adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated carcinoma or carcinoma of the gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) Siewert I or II.
* Surgical resectable (T1-4a, N0-3, M0).
* Childbearing potential women (period between menarche and menopause), pregnancy negative test is mandatory.
* Written informed consent.
Exclusion Criteria
* Contraindication of transthoracic esophagectomy in two fields.
* Pre- or concomitant cancer or conditions which interferes with the study (e.g. prior thoracic surgery or trauma. Rationale: these patients may undergo open resection).
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Barcelona
OTHER
Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Carla Bettonica, PhD
PhD. Department of Esophagogastric Surgery, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Leandre Farran, PhD Surgeon
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Stahl M, Mariette C, Haustermans K, Cervantes A, Arnold D; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013 Oct;24 Suppl 6:vi51-6. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt342. No abstract available.
Inderhees S, Dubecz A. [Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer-MIRO trial]. Chirurg. 2019 Aug;90(8):677. doi: 10.1007/s00104-019-0983-4. No abstract available. German.
van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA, Kroese CC, Haj Mohammad N, Mook S, Vleggaar FP, Borel Rinkes IHM, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracolaparoscopic Esophagectomy Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2019 Apr;269(4):621-630. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003031.
Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, Daams F, Roig Garcia J, Bonavina L, Rosman C, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, van der Peet DL. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophageal Resection: Three-year Follow-up of the Previously Reported Randomized Controlled Trial: the TIME Trial. Ann Surg. 2017 Aug;266(2):232-236. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002171.
Avery KN, Metcalfe C, Berrisford R, Barham CP, Donovan JL, Elliott J, Falk SJ, Goldin R, Hanna G, Hollowood AA, Krysztopik R, Noble S, Sanders G, Streets CG, Titcomb DR, Wheatley T, Blazeby JM. The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer--the ROMIO (Randomized Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014 Jun 2;15:200. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-200.
Brierley RC, Gaunt D, Metcalfe C, Blazeby JM, Blencowe NS, Jepson M, Berrisford RG, Avery KNL, Hollingworth W, Rice CT, Moure-Fernandez A, Wong N, Nicklin J, Skilton A, Boddy A, Byrne JP, Underwood T, Vohra R, Catton JA, Pursnani K, Melhado R, Alkhaffaf B, Krysztopik R, Lamb P, Culliford L, Rogers C, Howes B, Chalmers K, Cousins S, Elliott J, Donovan J, Heys R, Wickens RA, Wilkerson P, Hollowood A, Streets C, Titcomb D, Humphreys ML, Wheatley T, Sanders G, Ariyarathenam A, Kelly J, Noble F, Couper G, Skipworth RJE, Deans C, Ubhi S, Williams R, Bowrey D, Exon D, Turner P, Daya Shetty V, Chaparala R, Akhtar K, Farooq N, Parsons SL, Welch NT, Houlihan RJ, Smith J, Schranz R, Rea N, Cooke J, Williams A, Hindmarsh C, Maitland S, Howie L, Barham CP. Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT). BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 19;9(11):e030907. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030907.
Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M, Christie NA, Weksler B, Landreneau RJ, Abbas G, Schuchert MJ, Nason KS. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg. 2012 Jul;256(1):95-103. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182590603.
Pennathur A, Luketich JD, Landreneau RJ, Ward J, Christie NA, Gibson MK, Schuchert M, Cooper K, Land SR, Belani CP. Long-term results of a phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal neoplasm. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Jun;85(6):1930-6; discussion 1936-7. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.01.097.
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Esophageal cancer
Survival
Cancer Staging
Diagnosis
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
HUB-CIR-ROB-2020-01
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.