The RECMAP-study: Resection With or Without Intraoperative Mapping for Recurrent Glioblastoma
NCT ID: NCT06273176
Last Updated: 2024-02-22
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
225 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2023-01-01
2028-01-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
This study is an international, multicenter, prospective 3-arm cohort study of observational nature. Recurrent glioblastoma patients will be operated with mapping or no mapping techniques with a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoints are: 1) proportion of patients with NIHSS (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale) deterioration at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery and 2) residual tumor volume of the contrast-enhancing and non-contrast-enhancing part as assessed by a neuroradiologist on postoperative contrast MRI scans. Secondary endpoints are: 1) overall survival (OS), 2) progression-free survival (PFS), 4) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery, and 4) frequency and severity of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) in each arm. Estimated total duration of the study is 5 years. Patient inclusion is 4 years, follow-up is 1 year.
The study will be carried out by the centers affiliated with the European and North American Consortium and Registry for Intraoperative Mapping (ENCRAM).
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The RESBIOP-study: Resection Versus Biopsy in High-grade Glioma Patients (ENCRAM 2202)
NCT06146725
The PROGRAM-study: Awake Mapping Versus Asleep Mapping Versus No Mapping for Glioblastoma Resections
NCT04708171
The SUPRAMAX Study: Supramaximal Resection Versus Maximal Resection for High-Grade Glioma Patients (ENCRAM 2201)
NCT06118723
Supramarginal Resection in Glioblastoma
NCT04243005
Impact of iMRI on the Extent of Resection in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastomas
NCT02379572
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Study patients are operated with either awake mapping, asleep mapping or no mapping and will undergo evaluation at presentation (baseline) and during the follow-up period at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Motor function will be evaluated using the NIHSS (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale) and MRC (Medical Research Council) scales. Language function will be evaluated using a standard neurolinguistic test-battery consisting of the Aphasia Bedside Check (ABC), Shortened Token test, Verbal fluency, Picture description and Object naming. This neurolinguistic test-battery is the result of a consensus between the participating centers. Cognitive function will be assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). Overall patient functioning with be assessed with the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status classification system for comorbidities. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) will be assessed with the EQ-5D questionnaire and the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 questionnaires. Overall survival and progression-free survival will be assessed. We expect to complete patient inclusion in 4 years. The estimated duration of the study, including follow-up, will be 5 years.
The primary study objective is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of resections with or without mapping techniques (neurological morbidity and residual CE and NCE tumor volume) in recurrent glioblastoma patients as expressed by NIHSS scores and volumetric data. Secondary study objectives are to study the overall survival (OS), progressive-free survival (PFS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) after resections with or without mapping techniques as expressed by survival data, progression on follow up MRI scans based on the RANO criteria26 for tumor progression, quality of life questionnaires (EORTC QLQ C30, EORTC QLQ BN20, EQ-5D), and registration of SAEs.
Patients will be recruited from the neurosurgical or neurological outpatient clinic or through referral from general hospitals of the participating neurosurgical hospitals, located in Europe and the United States. The study is carried out by centers from the ENCRAM Consortium.
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.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Awake mapping
Awake mapping: Tumor resection with intraoperative awake motor or language mapping
Awake mapping under local anesthesia
During an awake craniotomy, the patient is awake and cooperative during the resection of the tumor while the surgeon uses electro(sub)cortical mapping to prevent damage to eloquent areas.
Asleep mapping
Asleep mapping: Tumor resection with intraoperative asleep motor mapping
Asleep mapping under general anesthesia
During asleep mapping under general anesthesia, the surgeon uses electro(sub)cortical mapping with evoked potentials (MEPs, SSEPs or continuous dynamic mapping) to prevent damage to eloquent areas.
No mapping
No mapping: Tumor resection without intraoperative mapping
Resection under general anesthesia without mapping
During resection under general anesthesia without mapping, the surgeon does not use any intraoperative stimulation mapping techniques to identify eloquent areas.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Awake mapping under local anesthesia
During an awake craniotomy, the patient is awake and cooperative during the resection of the tumor while the surgeon uses electro(sub)cortical mapping to prevent damage to eloquent areas.
Asleep mapping under general anesthesia
During asleep mapping under general anesthesia, the surgeon uses electro(sub)cortical mapping with evoked potentials (MEPs, SSEPs or continuous dynamic mapping) to prevent damage to eloquent areas.
Resection under general anesthesia without mapping
During resection under general anesthesia without mapping, the surgeon does not use any intraoperative stimulation mapping techniques to identify eloquent areas.
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
2. Tumor recurrence according to the RANO criteria of a previously diagnosed glioblastoma based on the WHO 2021 classification for glioma
3. Tumors situated in or near eloquent areas; motor cortex, sensory cortex, subcortical pyramidal tract, speech areas or visual areas as indicated on MRI (Sawaya Grading II and II)19
4. The tumor is suitable for resection (according to neurosurgeon)
5. Written informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
2. Multifocal contrast-enhancing lesions
3. Medical reasons precluding MRI (e.g., pacemaker)
4. Inability to give written informed consent
5. Secondary high-grade glioma due to malignant transformation from low-grade glioma
6. Clinical data unavailable for the newly diagnosed setting
90 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Haaglanden Medical Centre
OTHER
Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven
OTHER
University Hospital Heidelberg
OTHER
Technical University of Munich
OTHER
Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern
OTHER
Massachusetts General Hospital
OTHER
University of California, San Francisco
OTHER
Erasmus Medical Center
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Jasper Gerritsen
MD PhD
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Jasper Gerritsen, MD PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Erasmus Medical Center
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, California, United States
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
University Hospital Leuven
Leuven, , Belgium
Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg
Heidelberg, , Germany
Technical University Munich
Munich, , Germany
Erasmus Medical Center
Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands
Haaglanden Medical Center
The Hague, , Netherlands
Inselspital Universitätsspital Bern
Bern, , Switzerland
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.
Mitchel Berger, MD PhD
Role: primary
Brian Nahed, MD PhD
Role: primary
Steven De Vleeschouwer, MD PhD
Role: primary
Christine Jungk, MD PhD
Role: primary
Sandro Krieg, MD PhD
Role: backup
Arthur Wagner, MD
Role: primary
Jasper Gerritsen, MD PhD
Role: primary
Marike Broekman, MD PhD
Role: primary
Philippe Schucht, MD PhD
Role: primary
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
MEC-2020-0812
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.