Colonic NeoplasmsNCT00202111
Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Operations for Colon Cancer
A study testing Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy and Conventional open colectomy in people with Colonic Neoplasms, run by The Queen Elizabeth Hospital at 20 sites in 2 countries.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the short and long term outcomes of people who have colon cancers removed either by laparotomy (a large cut in the abdominal wall) or by a laparoscopic assisted approach (keyhole surgery). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Colonic Neoplasms
- What is being tested?
- Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy and Conventional open colectomy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 600 participants
- Where
- 20 sitesin 2 countries
- Study dates
- Jan 1998to Mar 2010
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Clinical diagnosis of a single adenocarcinoma of the ascending, descending, or sigmoid colon
- 18 years of age or older
- Able to give informed consent
- Must be able to participate in follow-up examinations
- Must not have prohibitive scars or adhesions from previous abdominal surgery
Who cannot join
- Advanced local disease, defined as >8cm in diameter or extensive infiltration
- Any previous or current malignant tumour with the previous 5 years (except superficial squamous or basal cell skin carcinoma or in situ cervical cancer)
- ASA 4
- ASA 5
- Associated gastrointestinal disease
- Dukes D disease
Show all 12Show fewer
- Emergency presentation
- Massive bleeding
- Morbid obesity
- Pregnancy
- Rectal cancer
- Transverse colon cancer
Trial locations and contacts
20 sites in 2 countries.
20 sites in 2 countries
Australia18 sites
Royal Adelaide Hospital
Adelaide, South Australia, 5000
Wesley Hospital
Auchenflower, Queensland, 4066
Ballarat Base Hospital
Ballarat, Victoria, 3350
Royal Brisbane Hospital
Brisbane, Queensland, 4000
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
Camperdown, New South Wales, 2050
Holy Spirit Northside Private Hospital
Chermside, Queensland, 4032
Monash Medical Centre
Clayton, Victoria, 3168
Concord Hospital
Concord, New South Wales, 2137
Lyell McEwin Health Service
Elizabeth Vale, South Australia, 5112
North West Brisbane Private Hospital
Everton Park, Queensland, 4053
Western Health
Footscray, Victoria, 3011
Fremantle Hospital
Fremantle, Western Australia, 6160
Greenslopes Private Hospital
Greenslopes, Queensland, 4120
St George Hospital
Kogarah, New South Wales, 2217
Cabrini Institute
Malvern, Victoria, 3144
Calvary Health Care Adelaide Inc.
North Adelaide, South Australia, 5006
Royal North Shore Hospital & Community Health Service
St Leonards, New South Wales, 2065
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Woodville South, South Australia, 5011
New Zealand2 sites
Auckland Hospital
Auckland
Christchurch Hospital
Christchurch
About this study
Official title: Australasian Multicentered Prospective Randomised Clinical Study Comparing Laparoscopic and Conventional Open Surgical Treatments of Colon Cancer in Adults
The purpose of this study is to compare the short and long term outcomes of people who have colon cancers removed either by laparotomy (a large cut in the abdominal wall) or by a laparoscopic assisted approach (keyhole surgery). This study involves 37 credentialled surgeons in 20 approved hospitals across Australasia and during the recruitment period (Jan 1998 to March 2005) 601 patients were recruited into the ALCCaS Trial.
Read the detailed description
AIMS
The primary aim of the study is to test the hypothesis that tumour related disease free interval and overall survival are equivalent regardless whether patients receive laparoscopic colon resection (LCR) or open colon resection (OCR) at three and five years post operatively. The secondary aims of the study are to determine the safety of LCR compared to OCR and 30 day mortality and compare post operative pain, paralytic ileus, early and late morbidities (including wound site recurrence), recovery, transfusion requirements, cost and quality of life scores.
BACKGROUND
The ALCCaS Trial is an Australasian, multicentred, prospective, randomised clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments of colon cancer in adults. This trial has been recruiting patients since 1998.
Patients are randomised to receive either laparoscopic or conventional open resection for colon cancer. A Randomisation Centre was established to provide a 24-hour randomisation service and this centre is situated in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Health Research Council of New Zealand Data Safety Committee, chaired by Professor Tom Fleming, access the ALCCaS Trial annually to ensure that it meets strict ethical and research related criteria.
During the recruitment period (Jan 1998 to March 2005) 601 patients were recruited into the ALCCaS Trial. There have been 37 surgeons involved in recruiting patients at 20 hospitals within Australia and New Zealand. All surgeons participating in the ALCCaS trial are accredited in laparoscopic surgical techniques. To gain accreditation, a surgeon must have carried out no less than 20 supervised colon resections and must provide video evidence of two laparoscopic colonic resections for review. Surgeons from throughout Australia and New Zealand are participating in this study. The Research Ethics Committees at a variety of hospitals throughout New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia and New Zealand have approved the study.
DATA COLLECTION
The type of colon resection performed by the individual surgeon will follow standard oncologically safe principles. The following intra-operative details will be collected, the patient epidemiology, ASA status, previous abdominal surgery, incision type, site of carcinoma, modality of diagnosis, pre operative haemoglobin and lung function tests, pre operative blood transfusion, planned operation, planned incision. Intra operatively the date of the operation, whether DVT prophylaxis has been used, the type of bowel preparation, the type of operation performed, if the laparoscopic procedure is performed whether it included mobilisation of the bowel, ligation of main artery and vein, transection of the bowel, resection of the bowel and anastomosis done as an intraperitoneal procedure are recorded.
The use of cytotoxic irrigation of the peritoneum, wound and colonic lumen is noted. Estimated surgical blood loss and intra operative blood transfusion is recorded. The post operative position of the tumour is noted. The type of incision and size of incision is recorded. Any reason for change in planned incision is recorded and the theatre utilisation, and total anaesthetic time and duration of the operative procedure are recorded. Intra operative temperature record is kept. Reason for stoma formation, if applicable, is recorded. The intra operative costs and disposable items are identified. Intra operative complications are identified as well as adverse events involving surgical equipment.
In the post operative phase the total intravenous fluid requirement, blood transfusion, pain scores, amount of Morphine used, whether the patient vomited and whether nasogastric tube is required as well as lung function tests and any adverse events are noted at 30 minutes following the procedure, 6 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, 96 hours, 120 hours, 144 hours, 168 hours and continued daily until the patient is discharged if not already discharged at that time. At discharge from hospital, total hospital days are identified as well as time in high dependency unit or intensive care unit, reason for delay in discharge is noted, post operative events including cardiac, respiratory, renal, ileus, wound infection, anastomotic leakage and other events are identified.
Pathology includes the site of tumour, TNM staging, ACPS staging, length of resected colon, proximal clearance, distal clearance, number of nodes obtained, tumour differentiation, venous invasion, perineal invasion and histological type. Adjuvant chemotherapy if planned is noted. Patients in the study may be entered into an adjuvant chemotherapy trial following surgery provided the subsequent trial does not have radiation as a component of therapy and that the chemotherapy trial allows entering of patients from both surgical arms of the study. Follow up is quarterly for the first year, 6 monthly for year two and three and then annually until year five. At follow up wounds are check for any evidence of recurrence. A colonoscopy is performed 12 months following resection and then every three years following that if negative. Chest xray, abdominal CT or liver ultrasound, a complete blood picture are performed if clinically indicated, CEA's performed six monthly.
FOLLOW-UP SCHEDULE
Patients are followed for tumour recurrence and survival. Patients are advised on, and offered standard treatment with, adjuvant therapy. Follow-up is standardised to provide accurate data on recurrence and survival and more frequent examinations and investigations are performed if clinically indicated.
Frequency of Follow-up:
The minimum number of follow-up evaluations is as follows:
- every 3 months for the lst year.
- every 6 months for the 2nd and 3rd years.
- annually for the 4th and 5th years.
Test Schedule:
The minimal requirements for follow-up investigations are as follows:
- History and examination with a specific check for tumour wound recurrence.
- Colon evaluation including colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy plus barium enema.
- Annual examination if positive for neoplasia (earlier if preoperative proximal examination is incomplete for technical reasons); examination every 3 years if negative.
- haemoglobin and white cell count
- creatinine, SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, CEA
- Chest X-ray
- Abdominal CT scan or liver ultrasound annually for 5 years.
- Quality of Life and Complications documentation postoperatively at 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months and 18 months.
SIGNIFICANCE AND OUTCOMES
The study will determine the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic assisted resection of colonic adenocarcinoma. It will also answer questions of cost effectiveness and quality of life improvement. It will determine if port site recurrence is a real issue in this type of surgery.
The study will also give valuable data about the outcomes of patients undergoing laparotomy in regard to current length of hospital stay, effectiveness of post-operative analgesia, in hospital complications and transfusion requirements.
- Conditions
- Colonic Neoplasms
- Being tested
- Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, Conventional open colectomy
- Keywords
- Clinical Trial, Colonic Neoplasms, Laparoscopic Surgery, Morbidity, Port Site Metastasis, Disease-Free Survival
- Medical subject headings
- Colonic Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Laparoscopic-assisted colectomyProcedure or surgery
Conventional open colectomyProcedure or surgery
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Disease-free interval
Three-year survival
Five-year survival
Secondary outcomes (9)
30-day mortality
Postoperative pain
Paralytic ileus
Early morbidity
Late morbidity
Recovery
Transfusion requirement
Cost effectiveness
Quality of Life outcomes
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Study startJan 1998
- Study completionMar 2010
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Colonic NeoplasmsStudies 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
- 600 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia, Health Research Council, New Zealand, Ethicon Endo-Surgery
- Investigators
- Peter J Hewett, MBBS, FRACS, Study director, The Queen Elizabeth HospitalAndrew RL Stevenson, MBBS, FRACS, Principal investigator, Royal Brisbane HospitalMichael J Solomon, FRACS, MSc, Principal investigator, Royal Prince Alfred Medical Centre
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00202111
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 83449871
- Other IDs
- NH&MRC ID 207815, NH&MRC ID 349381
- Status last verified
- Feb 2006
- First submitted
- 12 Sep 2005
- Last updated
- 17 Oct 2006
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Bagshaw PF, Allardyce RA, Frampton CM, Frizelle FA, Hewett PJ, McMurrick PJ, Rieger NA, Smith JS, Solomon MJ, Stevenson AR; Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study Group. Long-term outcomes of the australasian randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study trial. Ann Surg. 2012 Dec;256(6):915-9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182765ff8.
PubMed 23154392Allardyce RA, Bagshaw PF, Frampton CM, Frizelle FA, Hewett PJ, Rieger NA, Smith JS, Solomon MJ, Stevenson AR; Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study Group. Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study shows that elderly patients may benefit from lower postoperative complication rates following laparoscopic versus open resection. Br J Surg. 2010 Jan;97(1):86-91. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6785.
PubMed 19937975Hewett PJ, Allardyce RA, Bagshaw PF, Frampton CM, Frizelle FA, Rieger NA, Smith JS, Solomon MJ, Stephens JH, Stevenson AR. Short-term outcomes of the Australasian randomized clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the ALCCaS trial. Ann Surg. 2008 Nov;248(5):728-38. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818b7595.
PubMed 18948799
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Oct 2006. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Australasian Multicentered Prospective Randomised Clinical Study Comparing Laparoscopic and Conventional Open Surgical Treatments of Colon Cancer in Adults
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00202111
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 83449871
- Conditions
- Colonic Neoplasms
- Keywords
- Clinical Trial, Colonic Neoplasms, Laparoscopic Surgery, Morbidity, Port Site Metastasis, Disease-Free Survival
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 600 participants
- Lead sponsor
- The Queen Elizabeth HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia, Health Research Council, New Zealand, Ethicon Endo-Surgery
- Study start
- Jan 1998
- Study completion
- Mar 2010
- First posted
- 20 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to compare the short and long term outcomes of people who have colon cancers removed either by laparotomy (a large cut in the abdominal wall) or by a laparoscopic assisted approach (keyhole surgery). This study involves 37 credentialled surgeons in 20 approved hospitals across Australasia and during the recruitment period (Jan 1998 to March 2005) 601 patients were recruited into the ALCCaS Trial.
Detailed description
AIMS
The primary aim of the study is to test the hypothesis that tumour related disease free interval and overall survival are equivalent regardless whether patients receive laparoscopic colon resection (LCR) or open colon resection (OCR) at three and five years post operatively. The secondary aims of the study are to determine the safety of LCR compared to OCR and 30 day mortality and compare post operative pain, paralytic ileus, early and late morbidities (including wound site recurrence), recovery, transfusion requirements, cost and quality of life scores.
BACKGROUND
The ALCCaS Trial is an Australasian, multicentred, prospective, randomised clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments of colon cancer in adults. This trial has been recruiting patients since 1998.
Patients are randomised to receive either laparoscopic or conventional open resection for colon cancer. A Randomisation Centre was established to provide a 24-hour randomisation service and this centre is situated in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Health Research Council of New Zealand Data Safety Committee, chaired by Professor Tom Fleming, access the ALCCaS Trial annually to ensure that it meets strict ethical and research related criteria.
During the recruitment period (Jan 1998 to March 2005) 601 patients were recruited into the ALCCaS Trial. There have been 37 surgeons involved in recruiting patients at 20 hospitals within Australia and New Zealand. All surgeons participating in the ALCCaS trial are accredited in laparoscopic surgical techniques. To gain accreditation, a surgeon must have carried out no less than 20 supervised colon resections and must provide video evidence of two laparoscopic colonic resections for review. Surgeons from throughout Australia and New Zealand are participating in this study. The Research Ethics Committees at a variety of hospitals throughout New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia and New Zealand have approved the study.
DATA COLLECTION
The type of colon resection performed by the individual surgeon will follow standard oncologically safe principles. The following intra-operative details will be collected, the patient epidemiology, ASA status, previous abdominal surgery, incision type, site of carcinoma, modality of diagnosis, pre operative haemoglobin and lung function tests, pre operative blood transfusion, planned operation, planned incision. Intra operatively the date of the operation, whether DVT prophylaxis has been used, the type of bowel preparation, the type of operation performed, if the laparoscopic procedure is performed whether it included mobilisation of the bowel, ligation of main artery and vein, transection of the bowel, resection of the bowel and anastomosis done as an intraperitoneal procedure are recorded.
The use of cytotoxic irrigation of the peritoneum, wound and colonic lumen is noted. Estimated surgical blood loss and intra operative blood transfusion is recorded. The post operative position of the tumour is noted. The type of incision and size of incision is recorded. Any reason for change in planned incision is recorded and the theatre utilisation, and total anaesthetic time and duration of the operative procedure are recorded. Intra operative temperature record is kept. Reason for stoma formation, if applicable, is recorded. The intra operative costs and disposable items are identified. Intra operative complications are identified as well as adverse events involving surgical equipment.
In the post operative phase the total intravenous fluid requirement, blood transfusion, pain scores, amount of Morphine used, whether the patient vomited and whether nasogastric tube is required as well as lung function tests and any adverse events are noted at 30 minutes following the procedure, 6 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, 96 hours, 120 hours, 144 hours, 168 hours and continued daily until the patient is discharged if not already discharged at that time. At discharge from hospital, total hospital days are identified as well as time in high dependency unit or intensive care unit, reason for delay in discharge is noted, post operative events including cardiac, respiratory, renal, ileus, wound infection, anastomotic leakage and other events are identified.
Pathology includes the site of tumour, TNM staging, ACPS staging, length of resected colon, proximal clearance, distal clearance, number of nodes obtained, tumour differentiation, venous invasion, perineal invasion and histological type. Adjuvant chemotherapy if planned is noted. Patients in the study may be entered into an adjuvant chemotherapy trial following surgery provided the subsequent trial does not have radiation as a component of therapy and that the chemotherapy trial allows entering of patients from both surgical arms of the study. Follow up is quarterly for the first year, 6 monthly for year two and three and then annually until year five. At follow up wounds are check for any evidence of recurrence. A colonoscopy is performed 12 months following resection and then every three years following that if negative. Chest xray, abdominal CT or liver ultrasound, a complete blood picture are performed if clinically indicated, CEA's performed six monthly.
FOLLOW-UP SCHEDULE
Patients are followed for tumour recurrence and survival. Patients are advised on, and offered standard treatment with, adjuvant therapy. Follow-up is standardised to provide accurate data on recurrence and survival and more frequent examinations and investigations are performed if clinically indicated.
Frequency of Follow-up:
The minimum number of follow-up evaluations is as follows:
- every 3 months for the lst year.
- every 6 months for the 2nd and 3rd years.
- annually for the 4th and 5th years.
Test Schedule:
The minimal requirements for follow-up investigations are as follows:
- History and examination with a specific check for tumour wound recurrence.
- Colon evaluation including colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy plus barium enema.
- Annual examination if positive for neoplasia (earlier if preoperative proximal examination is incomplete for technical reasons); examination every 3 years if negative.
- haemoglobin and white cell count
- creatinine, SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, CEA
- Chest X-ray
- Abdominal CT scan or liver ultrasound annually for 5 years.
- Quality of Life and Complications documentation postoperatively at 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months and 18 months.
SIGNIFICANCE AND OUTCOMES
The study will determine the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic assisted resection of colonic adenocarcinoma. It will also answer questions of cost effectiveness and quality of life improvement. It will determine if port site recurrence is a real issue in this type of surgery.
The study will also give valuable data about the outcomes of patients undergoing laparotomy in regard to current length of hospital stay, effectiveness of post-operative analgesia, in hospital complications and transfusion requirements.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Clinical diagnosis of a single adenocarcinoma of the ascending, descending, or sigmoid colon
- 18 years of age or older
- Able to give informed consent
- Must be able to participate in follow-up examinations
- Must not have prohibitive scars or adhesions from previous abdominal surgery
Key exclusion criteria (12 listed)
- Advanced local disease, defined as >8cm in diameter or extensive infiltration
- Any previous or current malignant tumour with the previous 5 years (except superficial squamous or basal cell skin carcinoma or in situ cervical cancer)
- ASA 4
- ASA 5
- Associated gastrointestinal disease
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy | Procedure or surgery | – |
| Conventional open colectomy | Procedure or surgery | – |
Primary outcome
Disease-free interval
Three-year survival
Five-year survival
9 secondary outcomes
30-day mortality
Postoperative pain
Paralytic ileus
Early morbidity
Late morbidity
Recovery
Transfusion requirement
Cost effectiveness
Quality of Life outcomes
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Oct 2006.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 23154392Bagshaw PF, Allardyce RA, Frampton CM, Frizelle FA, Hewett PJ, McMurrick PJ, Rieger NA, Smith JS, Solomon MJ, Stevenson AR; Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study Group. Long-term outcomes of the australasian randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study trial. Ann Surg. 2012 Dec;256(6):915-9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182765ff8.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 19937975Allardyce RA, Bagshaw PF, Frampton CM, Frizelle FA, Hewett PJ, Rieger NA, Smith JS, Solomon MJ, Stevenson AR; Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study Group. Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study shows that elderly patients may benefit from lower postoperative complication rates following laparoscopic versus open resection. Br J Surg. 2010 Jan;97(1):86-91. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6785.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 18948799Hewett PJ, Allardyce RA, Bagshaw PF, Frampton CM, Frizelle FA, Rieger NA, Smith JS, Solomon MJ, Stephens JH, Stevenson AR. Short-term outcomes of the Australasian randomized clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the ALCCaS trial. Ann Surg. 2008 Nov;248(5):728-38. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818b7595.
Related trials for Colonic Neoplasms
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Hepatic Artery Infusion of Carfilzomib in Participants With Liver Metastatic Disease Previously Treated With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms, Neoplasms
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Natural History Study of Early Life Exposures in Agriculture (ELEA)
Prostate Cancer, Leukemia
RecruitingPhase 2
Tislelizumab in People With Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Cancer
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Alberta Cancer Exercise Dose in Colorectal Cancer
Cancer, Colorectal Cancer
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.
Peter J Hewett, MBBS, FRACS study director
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Andrew RL Stevenson, MBBS, FRACS principal investigator
Royal Brisbane Hospital
Michael J Solomon, FRACS, MSc principal investigator
Royal Prince Alfred Medical Centre
20 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy and Conventional open colectomy in people with Colonic Neoplasms, run by The Queen Elizabeth Hospital at 20 sites in 2 countries.
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 5 inclusion and 12 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Oct 2006. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 20 sites in Australia, New Zealand. 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?
Results are not available in the source record.
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?
Disease-free interval. The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00202111, which also lists 3 linked publications.
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 17 Oct 2006.