Photon Beam Radiation Therapy
Radiationdaily fractions
Other names: External beam radiation therapy using photons (procedure), Photon, Photon EBRT, Photon External Beam Radiotherapy, PHOTON Therapy, Radiation, Photon Beam
NCT Number: NCT02179086
This randomized phase II trial studies how well dose-escalated photon intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton beam radiation therapy works compared with standard-dose radiation therapy when given with temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays and other types of radiation to kill tumor cells and shrink tumors. Specialized radiation therapy that delivers a high dose of radiation directly to the tumor may kill more tumor cells and cause less damage to normal tissue. Drugs, such as temozolomide, may make tumor cells more sensitive to radiation therapy. It is not yet known whether dose-escalated photon IMRT or proton beam radiation therapy is more effective than standard-dose radiation therapy with temozolomide in treating glioblastoma.
This study is active but is not currently recruiting participants.
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Phase 2
BCCA-Vancouver Island Cancer Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE:
I. To determine if dose-escalated and -intensified photon IMRT or proton beam therapy (using a dose-per-fraction escalation with simultaneous integrated boost) with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide improves overall survival, as compared to standard-dose photon irradiation with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:
I. To indirectly compare dose-escalated and -intensified photon IMRT to dose-escalated and -intensified proton beam therapy in terms of overall survival.
II. To indirectly compare and record toxicities of dose-escalated and -intensified photon IMRT versus dose-escalated and -intensified proton beam therapy and directly compare the toxicities of these approaches versus standard-dose photon irradiation on the backbone of concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide.
III. To determine if dose-escalated and -intensified IMRT or proton beam therapy (using a dose-per-fraction escalation with simultaneous integrated boost) with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide improves perceived cognitive symptom severity, as compared to standard-dose photon irradiation with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide.
IV. To determine if dose-escalated and -intensified photon IMRT or proton beam therapy (using a dose-per-fraction escalation with simultaneous integrated boost) with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide improves neurocognitive function, as compared to standard-dose photon irradiation with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide.
V. To indirectly determine if dose-escalated and -intensified proton beam therapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide improves perceived cognitive symptom severity, as compared to dose-escalated and -intensified photon IMRT, and to directly compare symptom burden with these approaches versus standard-dose photon irradiation on the backbone of concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide.
VI. To indirectly determine if dose-escalated and -intensified proton beam therapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide improves neurocognitive function, as compared to dose-escalated and -intensified photon IMRT, and to directly compare neurocognitive function with these approaches versus standard-dose photon irradiation on the backbone of concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide.
EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES:
I. Tissue banking for future translational science projects that will be determined based on the state of the science at the time the primary endpoint is reported and will be submitted to National Cancer Institute (NCI) for review and approval.
II. To prospectively compare CD4 lymphopenia between dose-escalated and intensified proton beam therapy, dose-escalated and -intensified photon IMRT, and standard-dose photon irradiation and determine whether CD4 lymphopenia impacts overall survival.
III. To explore the most appropriate and clinically relevant technological parameters to ensure quality and effectiveness throughout radiation therapy processes, including imaging, simulation, patient immobilization, target and critical structure definition, treatment planning, image guidance and delivery.
IIIa. To establish feasibility and clinical relevancy of quality assurance guidelines.
IIIb. To evaluate efficacy of quality assurance tools. IV. To explore the most appropriate and clinically relevant advanced and standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging parameters.
IVa. To evaluate the feasibility of differentiating pseudo-progression and true progression in a multi institutional setting using magnetic resonance (MR) diffusion and perfusion imaging.
IVb. To evaluate for early, imaging biomarkers of response and overall survival.
OUTLINE: Patients are assigned to 1 of 2 groups depending on enrolling institution. Within each group, patients will be randomized 1:2 in favor of the experimental arms.
GROUP 1 = PHOTON IMRT CENTERS. GROUP 2 = PROTON CENTERS.
After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 3 months for 1 year, every 4 months for 1 year, and then every 6 months thereafter.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
daily fractions
Other names: External beam radiation therapy using photons (procedure), Photon, Photon EBRT, Photon External Beam Radiotherapy, PHOTON Therapy, Radiation, Photon Beam
Undergo dose-escalated and -intensified proton beam radiation therapy
Other names: External beam radiation therapy protons (procedure), External Beam Radiotherapy (protons), PBRT, Proton, Proton EBRT, Proton External Beam Radiotherapy, Proton Radiation Therapy, PROTON Therapy, Radiation, Proton Beam
tablet
Other names: CCRG-81045, Gliotem, Imidazo[5,1-d]-1,2,3,5-tetrazine-8-carboxamide, 3, 4-dihydro-3-methyl-4-oxo-, M & B 39831, M and B 39831, Methazolastone, RP-46161, SCH 52365, Temcad, Temizole, Temodal, Temodar, Temomedac, TMZ
Time frame: Randomization to death or last follow-up. Median follow-up at time of analysis was 16.2 months for Group 1 and 18.3 months for Group 2.
Comparisons occur between standard vs. intensified RT arms within group (Group 1: photon IMRT centers; Group 2: proton centers). Median survival times were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, censoring participants alive at the time of analysis. Comparisons occur between standard vs. intensified RT arms within group (Group 1: photon IMRT centers; Group 2: proton centers)
Time frame: Randomization to death or last follow-up. Median follow-up at time of analysis was 16.2 months for Group 1 and 18.3 months for Group 2.
Per the protocol, this outcome measure would be addressed only if both experimental (intensified RT) arms were statistically significantly different from their respective control (standard RT) arms, as defined in the primary outcome measure. If that condition were satisfied, the experimental (intensified RT) arms from each group would be compared with each other. Median survival times would be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, censoring participants alive at the time of analysis.
Time frame: Randomization to progression, death, or last follow-up, whichever occurs first. Median follow-up at time of analysis was 16.2 months for Group 1 and 18.3 months for Group 2.
Progression is defined as any of the following: ≥25% increase in sum of the products of perpendicular diameters of enhancing lesions; any new lesion; or clinical deterioration, with the treating institution encouraged to differentiate progression from pseudoprogression and radionecrosis using surgical resection, biopsy, and alternative imaging accordingly. Median progression-free survival times were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, censoring participants alive at the time of analysis. Comparisons occur between standard vs. intensified RT arms within group (Group 1: photon IMRT centers; Group 2: proton centers).
Time frame: Randomization to death or last follow-up. Median follow-up at time of analysis was 16.2 months for Group 1 and 18.3 months for Group 2.
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) grades adverse event severity as follows: 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe, 4 = life-threatening, 5 = death related to adverse event. Proportions were estimated using an exact binomial distribution. Comparisons occur between standard vs. intensified RT arms within group (Group 1: photon IMRT centers; Group 2: proton centers)
Time frame: Baseline and end of cycle 3 of adjuvant temozolomide (approximately 24 weeks after start of chemoradiation)
The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for brain tumor (MDASI-BT) is a 28-item multi-symptom patient-reported outcome measure assessing the severity of symptoms experienced by cancer patients and the interference with daily living caused by these symptoms, with 9 items specific to brain tumors. Each item ranges from 0 (best condition) to 10 (worst condition). A subscale score (Cognitive Factor) is the average of the subscale items, given that a specified minimum numbers of items were completed. A score worse than baseline by at least one is considered deterioration. Change is calculated as time point - baseline such that a positive change value indicates worse symptoms compared to baseline. Comparisons occur between standard vs. intensified RT arms within group (Group 1: photon IMRT centers; Group 2: proton centers).
Time frame: Baseline and end of cycle 12 of adjuvant temozolomide (approximately 60 weeks after start of chemoradiation)
The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for brain tumor (MDASI-BT) is a 28-item multi-symptom patient-reported outcome measure assessing the severity of symptoms experienced by cancer patients and the interference with daily living caused by these symptoms, with 9 items specific to brain tumors. Each item ranges from 0 (best condition) to 10 (worst condition). A subscale score (Cognitive Factor) is the average of the subscale items, given that a specified minimum numbers of items were completed. A score worse than baseline by at least one is considered deterioration. Change is calculated as time point - baseline such that a positive change value indicates worse symptoms compared to baseline. Comparisons occur between standard vs. intensified RT arms within group (Group 1: photon IMRT centers; Group 2: proton centers).
Time frame: Baseline and end of cycle 3 of adjuvant temozolomide (approximately 24 weeks after start of chemoradiation)
The Clinical Trial Battery Composite Standardized Score is calculated as the arithmetic mean of multiple standardized neurocognitive test scores assessing memory, processing speed, executive function, and verbal fluency. Scores are standardized (z-scores) adjusted for age, education, and gender, with a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. A participant must have the majority of component scores available to calculate the composite. Possible scores are standardized z-scores that typically range from approximately -3 to +3, with higher scores indicating a better outcome. Change is calculated as time point minus baseline such that a positive change value indicates improvement and a negative change value indicates decline. Comparisons are made between standard-dose and intensified radiation therapy arms within group (Group 1: photon IMRT centers; Group 2: proton centers).
Time frame: Baseline and end of cycle 3 of adjuvant temozolomide (approximately 24 weeks after start of chemoradiation)
The Clinical Trial Battery Composite Standardized Score is calculated as the arithmetic mean of multiple standardized neurocognitive test scores assessing memory, processing speed, executive function, and verbal fluency. Scores are standardized (z-scores) adjusted for age, education, and gender, with a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. A participant must have the majority of component scores available to calculate the composite. Possible scores are standardized z-scores that typically range from approximately -3 to +3, with higher scores indicating a better outcome. Change is calculated as time point minus baseline such that a positive change value indicates improvement and a negative change value indicates decline. Comparisons are made between standard-dose and intensified radiation therapy arms within group (Group 1: photon IMRT centers; Group 2: proton centers).
Time frame: Baseline to up to 5 years
Mean CD4 lymphopenia count change from baseline to each follow-up collection timepoint.
Time frame: Baseline - cycle 4
Will be determined retrospectively following central review by an experienced neuro-radiologist blinded to the patient's outcome.
Time frame: Baseline up to 12 months
Cox proportional hazard model will be used to analyze the effect of imaging markers on overall survival. Known prognostic factors and patient baseline characteristics will be included in the multivariate analyses as covariates.
NRG Oncology
Other
Randomized Phase II Trial of Hypofractionated Dose-Escalated Photon IMRT or Proton Beam Therapy Versus Conventional Photon Irradiation With Concomitant and Adjuvant Temozolomide in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT02981940
Astrocytoma, Brain Diseases
Los Angeles, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT04181684
Astrocytoma, Brain Diseases
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07420543
Astrocytoma, Brain Tumors and/or Solid Tumors Including
Milan, Italy
View Trial DetailsNCT03975829
Anaplastic Astrocytoma, Anaplastic Ganglioglioma
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
View Trial Details