Bone DiseasesNCT00147823
Comparing Synthetic Bone Alone Versus Synthetic Bone With Bone Marrow in Bone Lesions
A study testing Vitoss Alone and Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate in people with Bone Diseases, run by State University of New York - Upstate Medical University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This is a prospective randomized study comparing Vitoss alone versus Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate in benign bone lesions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Bone Diseases
- What is being tested?
- Vitoss Alone and Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 63 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Dec 2004to Dec 2011
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients with a benign bone lesion requiring surgical curettage
Who cannot join
- Patients with infection, bone marrow disorders, or other contraindications to use of supplemental bone marrow aspiration as well as those who prefer autologous or allogeneic graft material alone (without synthetic filler) would be excluded.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
SUNY Upstate Medical University
Syracuse, New York, 13210
About this study
Official title: A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Vitoss Alone Versus Vitoss With Bone Marrow Aspirate in Benign Bone Lesions
This is a prospective randomized study comparing Vitoss alone versus Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate in benign bone lesions.
Read the detailed description
Bone graft obtained from a patient's own bone (autogenous), usually around the pelvis, is currently considered the gold standard for bone grafting material. It provides a structural scaffold on which the patient's own bone may grow into (osteoconduction), growth factors that can stimulate healing (osteoinduction), and primitive cells (progenitors) that can stimulate bone formation directly (osteogenesis). It readily regains a blood supply from the surrounding tissues (revascularization) and is incorporated into the recipient site. However, there are significant disadvantages in the use of the patient's own bone graft including complications where the bone is taken from (donor site morbidity), limited availability and expense. For defects created by scraping (curettage) of non-cancerous (benign) bone lesions, a structural scaffold (osteoconduction) is generally considered the minimal necessary role that the graft material must serve to allow healing of the defect. Hence, human donor bone procured at the time of death (allografts) and synthetic bone fillers have been used as an alternative to the patient's own bone (autogenous bone graft).
The question that remains is whether additional growth factors that can stimulate bone formation (osteoinductive property) and/or cells that form bone directly (osteogenic property) facilitate healing of these defects when added to a material other than the patient's own bone graft source. In our experience with the use of the synthetic bone graft substitute ultraporous beta-tricalcium phosphate (TCP) (Vitoss, Orthovita, Inc.) over the last 3 years, the graft material, when combined with local blood alone, has performed well clinically but has persisted for a year or longer radiographically in some cases. Prolonged persistence of the graft material may serve as a potential stress riser, although we did not observe any untoward late effects in our published work. Several authors have studied the effects of composite grafts formed from a combination of bone graft substitutes and the patient's own bone marrow in animal models with promising results. There are no studies in the current literature evaluating the effects of healing in composite ultraporous beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone marrow aspirate (BMA) in defects after scraping of benign tumors (cavitary defects) in humans. The purpose of this study is to prospectively examine healing of cavitary defects treated with TCP alone versus those treated with TCP combined with BMA. Our hypothesis is that both graft resorption and trabeculation (radiographic measures of incorporation of the synthetic material by the native bone) will be more advanced at each time point in those patients that receive BMA plus TCP compared to those that receive TCP alone. Patients with any type of benign bone lesion indicated for surgical curettage would be offered inclusion in the study and followed for a minimum of 2 years post-operatively. Bone marrow aspiration would be obtained by a needle inserted through the skin (percutaneous aspiration) from the large bone of the pelvis (iliac crest) using a standard bone marrow aspiration needle. Patients with infection, bone marrow disorders, or other conditions that preclude use of supplementary the patient's bone marrow as well as those who prefer to use their own bone graft material (autograft) or donated human bone graft (allograft) alone would be excluded. Each patient will undergo radiographic evaluation of the lesion at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 18 months and 2 years post operatively. At one time point (1 year) a computerized tomogram (CT) of the grafted region will be obtained for each patient. Two qualified, blinded, independent reviewers will evaluate the radiographs and CT scans for six criteria:
- presence of graft within the soft tissues,
- presence of a rim of radiolucency surrounding the grafted defect,
- size/circumference of the rim of radiolucency,
- resorption of graft material,
- trabeculation through the defect and
- persistence of graft material in the lesion.
Kappa statistics have shown good agreement for these parameters in our retrospective preliminary analysis of results for the TCP use without bone marrow over the first 2 years of its use by the PI.
- Conditions
- Bone Diseases
- Being tested
- Vitoss Alone, Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate
- Keywords
- Bone formation, Bone lesions, Benign bone lesion
- Medical subject headings
- Bone Diseases
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Vitoss AloneDevice
Synthetic bone graft material
Vitoss with Bone Marrow AspirateDevice
Vitoss mixed with Bone Marrow aspirate
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate | Experimental | Addition of Vitoss to the bone marrow aspirate Receives: Device: Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate |
| Vitoss Alone | Active comparator | vitoss alone Receives: Device: Vitoss Alone |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 24 Months
Percentage of graft material that is resorbed (disappears) from area of incorporation, at 24 months .Participants were seen 24 month follow with radiographs to review resorption of graft material. There a several that had incomplete follow up or radiographs not taken.
Measured: 24 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Study startDec 2004
- Primary completionDec 2011
- Study completionDec 2011
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Bone DiseasesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 63 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- State University of New York - Upstate Medical University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Orthovita d/b/a Stryker
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Timothy Damron, M.D., State University of New York - Upstate Medical University
- Investigators
- Timothy A. Damron, M.D., Principal investigator, State University of New York - Upstate Medical University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00147823
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SUNY UMU IRB # 5130
- Status last verified
- Dec 2013
- First submitted
- 1 Sep 2005
- Last updated
- 8 Jun 2015
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Jun 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Vitoss Alone Versus Vitoss With Bone Marrow Aspirate in Benign Bone Lesions
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00147823
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SUNY UMU IRB # 5130
- Conditions
- Bone Diseases
- Keywords
- Bone formation, Bone lesions, Benign bone lesion
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 63 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- State University of New York - Upstate Medical UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Orthovita d/b/a Stryker
- Study start
- Dec 2004
- Primary completion
- Dec 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2011 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 8 Jun 2015
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This is a prospective randomized study comparing Vitoss alone versus Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate in benign bone lesions.
Detailed description
Bone graft obtained from a patient's own bone (autogenous), usually around the pelvis, is currently considered the gold standard for bone grafting material. It provides a structural scaffold on which the patient's own bone may grow into (osteoconduction), growth factors that can stimulate healing (osteoinduction), and primitive cells (progenitors) that can stimulate bone formation directly (osteogenesis). It readily regains a blood supply from the surrounding tissues (revascularization) and is incorporated into the recipient site. However, there are significant disadvantages in the use of the patient's own bone graft including complications where the bone is taken from (donor site morbidity), limited availability and expense. For defects created by scraping (curettage) of non-cancerous (benign) bone lesions, a structural scaffold (osteoconduction) is generally considered the minimal necessary role that the graft material must serve to allow healing of the defect. Hence, human donor bone procured at the time of death (allografts) and synthetic bone fillers have been used as an alternative to the patient's own bone (autogenous bone graft).
The question that remains is whether additional growth factors that can stimulate bone formation (osteoinductive property) and/or cells that form bone directly (osteogenic property) facilitate healing of these defects when added to a material other than the patient's own bone graft source. In our experience with the use of the synthetic bone graft substitute ultraporous beta-tricalcium phosphate (TCP) (Vitoss, Orthovita, Inc.) over the last 3 years, the graft material, when combined with local blood alone, has performed well clinically but has persisted for a year or longer radiographically in some cases. Prolonged persistence of the graft material may serve as a potential stress riser, although we did not observe any untoward late effects in our published work. Several authors have studied the effects of composite grafts formed from a combination of bone graft substitutes and the patient's own bone marrow in animal models with promising results. There are no studies in the current literature evaluating the effects of healing in composite ultraporous beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone marrow aspirate (BMA) in defects after scraping of benign tumors (cavitary defects) in humans. The purpose of this study is to prospectively examine healing of cavitary defects treated with TCP alone versus those treated with TCP combined with BMA. Our hypothesis is that both graft resorption and trabeculation (radiographic measures of incorporation of the synthetic material by the native bone) will be more advanced at each time point in those patients that receive BMA plus TCP compared to those that receive TCP alone. Patients with any type of benign bone lesion indicated for surgical curettage would be offered inclusion in the study and followed for a minimum of 2 years post-operatively. Bone marrow aspiration would be obtained by a needle inserted through the skin (percutaneous aspiration) from the large bone of the pelvis (iliac crest) using a standard bone marrow aspiration needle. Patients with infection, bone marrow disorders, or other conditions that preclude use of supplementary the patient's bone marrow as well as those who prefer to use their own bone graft material (autograft) or donated human bone graft (allograft) alone would be excluded. Each patient will undergo radiographic evaluation of the lesion at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 18 months and 2 years post operatively. At one time point (1 year) a computerized tomogram (CT) of the grafted region will be obtained for each patient. Two qualified, blinded, independent reviewers will evaluate the radiographs and CT scans for six criteria:
- presence of graft within the soft tissues,
- presence of a rim of radiolucency surrounding the grafted defect,
- size/circumference of the rim of radiolucency,
- resorption of graft material,
- trabeculation through the defect and
- persistence of graft material in the lesion.
Kappa statistics have shown good agreement for these parameters in our retrospective preliminary analysis of results for the TCP use without bone marrow over the first 2 years of its use by the PI.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate | Experimental | Device: Vitoss with Bone Marrow AspirateAddition of Vitoss to the bone marrow aspirate |
| Vitoss Alone | Active comparator | Device: Vitoss Alonevitoss alone |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients with a benign bone lesion requiring surgical curettage
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients with infection, bone marrow disorders, or other contraindications to use of supplemental bone marrow aspiration as well as those who prefer autologous or allogeneic graft material alone (without synthetic filler) would be excluded.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Vitoss AloneSynthetic bone graft material | Device | Vitoss Alone |
| Vitoss with Bone Marrow AspirateVitoss mixed with Bone Marrow aspirate | Device | Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate |
Primary outcome
Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 24 Months
Time frame: 24 months
Percentage of graft material that is resorbed (disappears) from area of incorporation, at 24 months .Participants were seen 24 month follow with radiographs to review resorption of graft material. There a several that had incomplete follow up or radiographs not taken.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Jun 2015.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Paper written in 2002 when study first beganLink provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Bone Diseases
RecruitingPhase 1
Imatinib to Increase RUNX1 Activity in Participants With Germline RUNX1 Deficiency
Inherited Bone Marrow Failure Syndrome, Familial Platelet Disorder With Predisposition to Myeloid Malignancies
RecruitingObservational study
A Long-term Follow-up Study of Patients With ARD103 CAR-T Cell Therapies
Acute Myeloid Leukemia, in Relapse, Acute Myeloid Leukemia, in Relapsed or Refractory
RecruitingPhase 2
MYELOMATCH: A Screening Study to Assign People With Myeloid Cancer to a Treatment Study or Standard of Care Treatment Within myeloMATCH (MyeloMATCH Screening Trial)
Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Acute Myeloid Leukemia Arising From Previous Myelodysplastic/Myeloproliferative Neoplasm
RecruitingPhase 1
225Ac-DOTA-Anti-CD38 Daratumumab Monoclonal Antibody With Fludarabine, Melphalan and Total Marrow and Lymphoid Irradiation as Conditioning Treatment for Donor Stem Cell Transplant in Patients With High-Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Active, not recruitingPhase 1
Safety and Pharmacokinetics of LPX-TI641 in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis
Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Timothy A. Damron, M.D. principal investigator
State University of New York - Upstate Medical University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Vitoss Alone and Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate in people with Bone Diseases, run by State University of New York - Upstate Medical University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Jun 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 8 Jun 2015). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 24 Months (time frame: 24 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Jun 2015.