Prostate Cancer (Post Prostatectomy)ANROTATNCT01379872
Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technologies and Treatments
An observational study of Prostate Cancer (Post Prostatectomy) and Anal Cancer, run by Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group at 15 sites in Australia.
Trial summary
The Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) has been commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing to undertake a project to assess new Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Prostate Cancer (Post Prostatectomy), Anal Cancer, Nasopharyngeal Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Non-Interventional Study
- How many people
- 138 participants
- Where
- 15 sitesAustralia
- Study dates
- Jun 2011to Jun 2012
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Study Protocol A - IMRT Post Prostatectomy: Patients with prostate cancer (post prostatectomy) Study Protocol B - IMRT Anal Cancer: Patients with anal cancer Study Protocol C - IMRT Nasopharynx: Patients with nasopharynx cancer Study Protocol D - IGRT Intact Prostate: Patients with prostate cancer
Who may be able to join
None listed.
Who cannot join
- None of the following must apply:
- Previous pelvic RT or surgery ie previous rectal or bladder resection
- Concurrent or previous malignancy within 5 years prior to registration (except non-melanomatous skin cancer)
- Androgen deprivation (AD) prior to or following RP as this will affect QoL
- Evidence of nodal or distant metastases
- Clinical or imaging evidence of local recurrence
Show all 49Show fewer
- Planned adjuvant RT to cover pelvic lymph nodes
- PSA >1.0 ng/ml
- Co-morbidities that would interfere with the completion of treatment
- Concurrent cytotoxic medication
- Hip prosthesis
- Study Protocol B: IMRT versus 3DCRT in Anal Cancer Inclusion Criteria
- All of the following must apply:
- Informed consent for prospective patients (QoL component)
- Age 18-80 years of age
- Sufficient knowledge of English and adequate cognitive function to be able to complete the QoL and other questionnaires
- Histological confirmation of squamous cell carcinoma or basaloid carcinoma
- T2-4N0, TanyN2 (ipsilateral groin nodes) and TanyN3 (bilateral groin nodes).
- Intention to elective irradiate all pelvic nodal groups up to L5-S1 interspace (including mesorectal, presacral, internal iliac, external iliac, ischiorectal fossa, obturator and inguinal groups).
- Planned for radical chemoradiation.
- None of the following must apply:
- Evidence of metastatic disease
- Prior pelvic RT/ surgery (e.g. vaginal hysterectomy)
- Presence of hip prosthesis
- Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). HIV patients without AIDS eligible.
- Previous pelvic cancers
- Study Protocol C: IMRT versus 3DCRT in Nasopharynx Inclusion Criteria
- All of the following must apply:
- Informed consent for prospective patients (QoL component)
- Age >18 years
- Sufficient knowledge of English and adequate cognitive function to be able to complete the QoL and other questionnaires
- Histologically confirmed carcinoma of the nasopharynx, types WHO1-111, Stage I-IVB
- Adequate staging of local disease (MRI of primary must be performed, imaging of neck nodes with CT with contrast and/or PET-CT) and exclusion of distant metastatic disease (to be confirmed by either whole body PET-CT or a chest CT, and upper abdominal CT or ultrasound scan for patients with abnormal liver function tests or a bone scan or FDG-PET for patients with bone pain).
- Disease must be considered potentially curable by chemoradiation
- Patients must be medically fit for cisplatin chemotherapy according to local practice (adequate renal, cardiac function, no significant neurological co-morbidities)
- Performance status ECOG 0, 1 or 2.
- Previous head and neck RT or major surgery
- Prior chemotherapy < 6 months from study entry
- Study Protocol C: IGRT versus non-IGRT in Intact Prostate Inclusion Criteria
- Patient has provided written informed consent
- Aged 18 years or older
- Sufficient knowledge of English and adequate cognitive function to be able to complete the QoL and other questionnaires
- Histological diagnosis of carcinoma of the prostate < 6 months of entry without evidence of metastatic disease to the lymph nodes, bone or lung
- Intermediate risk prostate cancer (that is, T1-2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, PSA 10.1-20.0 ng/ml; T2b-c, Gleason ≤6, PSA ≤ 20.0 ng/ml; T1-2, Gleason 7, PSA ≤ 20.0 ng/ ml)
- Previous therapy for carcinoma of the prostate other than biopsy or transurethral resection.
- Previous pelvic RT or surgery (eg abdomino-perineal resection)
- Hip prosthesis
- Inflammatory bowel disease
- Previous or current use of AD
Trial locations and contacts
15 sites in 1 country.
15 sites in 1 country
Australia15 sites
Adelaide Radiotherapy Centre
Adelaide, South Australia
Princess Alexandra Hospital
Brisbane, Queensland, 4102
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
Camperdown, New South Wales, 2050
Andrew Love Cancer Care Centre, Geelong Hospital
Geelong, Victoria, 3220
Austin Health
Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084
WP Holman Clinic - Royal Hobart
Hobart, Tasmania, 7000
WP Holman Clinic - Launceston
Launceston, Tasmania, 7250
Liverpool Hospital
Liverpool, New South Wales, 1871
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
Melbourne, Victoria, 8006
Calvary Mater Newcastle
Newcastle, New South Wales, 2298
Alfred Hospital
Prahran, Victoria, 3181
Prince of Wales Hospital
Randwick, New South Wales, 2031
Radiation Oncology Queensland - Toowoomba
Toowoomba, Queensland
Westmead Hospital
Westmead, New South Wales, 2145
Illawarra Cancer Care Centre
Wollongong, New South Wales, 2500
About this study
Official title: The Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technologies and Treatments (ANROTAT) TROG Research Project TRP11.A
The Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) has been commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing to undertake a project to assess new Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments. This project is being undertaken in response to a recognised need for the Medicare Benefits Schedule to support appropriate new radiation oncology technologies and treatments as they become available, to ensure optimal patient care.
The first phase of the project required TROG to develop a Generic Research Framework (the Framework) capable of collecting and generating information to substantiate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of new technologies and treatments.
Read more
The second (and current) phase of the project requires that the Framework be piloted to assess the safety, clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) in four tumour site specific regions:
- Post Prostatectomy(IMRT) B. Anal Cancer (IMRT) C. Nasopharynx (IMRT) D. Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer (IGRT)
The aims of the site specific components of the ANROTAT protocol are as follows:
Protocol A. Develop an approach for applying the Framework to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IMRT compared to 3DCRT in patients with prostate cancer (PP).
Protocol B. Develop an approach for applying the Framework to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IMRT compared to 3DCRT in AC.
Protocol C. Develop an approach for applying the Framework to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IMRT compared to 3DCRT in NPC.
Protocol D. Develop an approach for applying the Framework to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IGRT compared to non-IGRT in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer.
Read the detailed description
The ANROTAT study is divided into four tumour site specific studies. A decision analytic model will be constructed for each disease area/technology to estimate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the new technology compared to conventional standard treatment approach. This will incorporate information from previous studies and data from a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL evaluation, and an evaluation of the cost of treatment planning and delivery. The development and refinement of these models is an integral component of the planned research program. The overall protocol details the data collection activities that have been identified as feasible and useful for informing the development of a series of decision analytic models to evaluate IMRT and IGRT for the four specified cancers.
These activities involve the collection of dosimetry data, quality of life (QoL) and toxicity data, and health care resource usage data in a series of component studies. These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of the decision analytic models.
Data will be collected from at least 10 treatment centres for each of the site specific studies. Data will be transcribed onto CRFs from source data forms. The CRFs will be sent to TROG Cancer Research on a secure fax line.
Participant's treatment plans will be securely uploaded to the TROG Central Quality Management System (CQMS) for plan review.
The data to be collected, number of participants and tasks for participants is outlined below for each of the site specific studies. WBRC has been invited to participate in Studies A and B only, however, ethics approval is sought for the entire ANROTAT protocol so our centre has approval and the option to participate in all components of ANROTAT where required.
Study Protocol A IMRT versus 3DCRT in Post Prostatectomy:
The post prostatectomy study methodology applies the ANROTAT framework and includes a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL/toxicity evaluation, and an evaluation of the cost of treatment planning and delivery. This involves the collection of data from approximately 30 patients. Data collection includes eligibility, adverse events/toxicity, QoL, patient costs, and dosimetry parameters (contouring, planning, quality assurance, treatment data). These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of a decision analytic model.
Centres will be asked to provide two retrospective and one prospective patient but this will have to be varied according to the availability of retrospective patients at each participating centre. Each centre will be provided with details of case selection.
Data collected directly from patients will include QoL and toxicity data as well as costs incurred by the patient as a result of their treatment.
Study Protocol B IMRT versus 3DCRT in Anal Cancer:
The anal canal study methodology applies the ANROTAT framework and includes a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL/toxicity evaluation, and healthcare resource usage. This involves the collection of data from 30 patients. Data collection includes eligibility, adverse events/toxicity, QoL, patient costs, and dosimetry parameters (contouring, planning, quality assurance, treatment data). These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of a decision analytic model.
Participating centres will be asked to provide data on the contouring and planning of a CT data set that will be sent to each of the participating centres. Following this, each participating centre will plan 3 retrospective patient cases each. In addition to this, data will be collected from 10 prospective anal cancer patients who will be asked to complete QoL and patient cost questionnaires.
Study Protocol C IMRT versus 3DCRT in NPC:
The nasopharynx study methodology applies the ANROTAT framework and includes a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL/toxicity evaluation, and healthcare resource usage. This involves the collection of data from 30 patients for the dosimetry component and 150 patients for the QoL component.
Data collection includes eligibility, adverse events/toxicity, QoL, patient costs, and dosimetry parameters (contouring, planning, quality assurance, treatment data). These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of a decision analytic model.
Participating centres will be asked to provide data on the contouring of a CT data set that will be sent to each of the participating centres. Following this, the dosimetry component will require centres to recruit as many prospective patients as possible to collect the above mentioned data. Due to the short time frame, if 30 prospective patients cannot be recruited in the time frame, this will be supplemented with retrospective cases. In addition to this, data will be collected from 150 nasopharynx patients who will be asked to complete QoL and patient cost questionnaires.
Study Protocol D IGRT versus non IGRT in Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer:
The IGRT study methodology applies the ANROTAT framework and includes a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL/toxicity evaluation, and healthcare resource usage. This involves the collection of data from 30 prospective patients.
Data collection includes eligibility, adverse events/toxicity, QoL, patient costs, and dosimetry parameters. These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of a decision analytic model.
Data collected directly from patients will include QoL and toxicity data as well as costs incurred by the patient as a result of their treatment.
- Conditions
- Prostate Cancer (Post Prostatectomy), Anal Cancer, Nasopharyngeal Cancer, Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer
- Being tested
- Non-Interventional Study
- Keywords
- Prostate, Head and Neck, Anal
- Medical subject headings
- Prostatic Neoplasms, Anus Neoplasms, Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Non-Interventional StudyOther
This is a non-interventional study
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Study Protocol A - IMRT Post Prostatectomy | * Prospective TROG 08.03 (RAVES) Participants
* Prospective Participants (NOT participating in TROG 08.03 (RAVES))
* Retrospective TROG 08.03 (RAVES) Participants
* Participating in dosimetric evaluation and toxicity/QoL study
* Participating in dosimetric evaluation only Receives: Other: Non-Interventional Study | |
| Study Protocol B - IMRT Anal Cancer | * Retrospective Patient Datasets
* Prospective Participants (dosimetric evaluation and toxicity/QoL study) Receives: Other: Non-Interventional Study | |
| Study Protocol C - IMRT Nasopharynx | * Retrospective Patient Datasets
* Prospective Participants (dosimetric evaluation and toxicity/QoL study)
* Post-Treatment Prospective Participants (toxicity/QoL and cost study) Receives: Other: Non-Interventional Study | |
| Study Protocol D - IGRT Intact Prostate | Patients with prostate cancer - A sample of 30 patients from at least 10 centres that are to be treated for intermediate risk prostate cancer will be enrolled. The sample will be selected to comprise at least 10 patients that will undergo non-IGRT, 10 that will undergo IGRT with fiducials and planar imaging, and 10 that will undergo IGRT with volumetric imaging. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Comparison of dosimetry between treatment plans prepared using IMRT/IGRT vs 3DCRT/Non IGRT as a surrogate for effectiveness and safety.
Measured By:
- Tumour control estimated from surrogate physical dose endpoints with each of the new technologies as compared with standard therapy.
- The likelihood of acute or long term damage to organ/tissue and resultant likelihood of impairment of function or QoL estimated from surrogate physical dose endpoints with each of the new technologies as compared with standard therapy.
Measured: 6 Months
Obtain Data on the impact of disease and treatment on QoL
Measured by
- QALYs gained, and cost-per-QALY gained
- The likely cost increases or savings resulting from differences in acute or long term toxicity.
Measured: 6 months
Compare the resource usage associated with the planning and delivery of the new technologies compared to the conventional standard approaches
- The differences in time and resources required for preparation, planning, quality assurance (QA) checking and treatment for each of the new technologies as compared with standard therapy.
- The likely cost increases or savings associated with differences in time and resources involved in the management of patients with each of the new technologies as compared with standard therapy.
Measured: 6 months
Synthesise the data obtained for objectives 1-3 together with information from previous studies and expert opinion to estimate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of new technologies compared to conventional standards
- QALYs gained, and cost-per-QALY gained
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Jun 2011 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2011
- Primary completionMay 2012
- Study completionJun 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Prostate Cancer (Post Prostatectomy)Studies 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
- Observational
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 138 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Bryan Burmeister, Study chair, Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01379872
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- TRP.11A
- Acronym
- ANROTAT
- Status last verified
- Jun 2011
- First submitted
- 8 Jun 2011
- Last updated
- 13 Feb 2013
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Feb 2013. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technologies and Treatments (ANROTAT) TROG Research Project TRP11.A
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01379872
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ANROTAT / TRP.11A
- Conditions
- Prostate Cancer (Post Prostatectomy), Anal Cancer, Nasopharyngeal Cancer, Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer
- Keywords
- Prostate, Head and Neck, Anal
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 138 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology GroupUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2011
- Primary completion
- May 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Jun 2011 (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 Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) has been commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing to undertake a project to assess new Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments. This project is being undertaken in response to a recognised need for the Medicare Benefits Schedule to support appropriate new radiation oncology technologies and treatments as they become available, to ensure optimal patient care.
The first phase of the project required TROG to develop a Generic Research Framework (the Framework) capable of collecting and generating information to substantiate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of new technologies and treatments.
The second (and current) phase of the project requires that the Framework be piloted to assess the safety, clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) in four tumour site specific regions:
- Post Prostatectomy(IMRT) B. Anal Cancer (IMRT) C. Nasopharynx (IMRT) D. Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer (IGRT)
The aims of the site specific components of the ANROTAT protocol are as follows:
Protocol A. Develop an approach for applying the Framework to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IMRT compared to 3DCRT in patients with prostate cancer (PP).
Protocol B. Develop an approach for applying the Framework to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IMRT compared to 3DCRT in AC.
Protocol C. Develop an approach for applying the Framework to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IMRT compared to 3DCRT in NPC.
Protocol D. Develop an approach for applying the Framework to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IGRT compared to non-IGRT in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer.
Detailed description
The ANROTAT study is divided into four tumour site specific studies. A decision analytic model will be constructed for each disease area/technology to estimate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the new technology compared to conventional standard treatment approach. This will incorporate information from previous studies and data from a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL evaluation, and an evaluation of the cost of treatment planning and delivery. The development and refinement of these models is an integral component of the planned research program. The overall protocol details the data collection activities that have been identified as feasible and useful for informing the development of a series of decision analytic models to evaluate IMRT and IGRT for the four specified cancers.
These activities involve the collection of dosimetry data, quality of life (QoL) and toxicity data, and health care resource usage data in a series of component studies. These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of the decision analytic models.
Data will be collected from at least 10 treatment centres for each of the site specific studies. Data will be transcribed onto CRFs from source data forms. The CRFs will be sent to TROG Cancer Research on a secure fax line.
Participant's treatment plans will be securely uploaded to the TROG Central Quality Management System (CQMS) for plan review.
The data to be collected, number of participants and tasks for participants is outlined below for each of the site specific studies. WBRC has been invited to participate in Studies A and B only, however, ethics approval is sought for the entire ANROTAT protocol so our centre has approval and the option to participate in all components of ANROTAT where required.
Study Protocol A IMRT versus 3DCRT in Post Prostatectomy:
The post prostatectomy study methodology applies the ANROTAT framework and includes a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL/toxicity evaluation, and an evaluation of the cost of treatment planning and delivery. This involves the collection of data from approximately 30 patients. Data collection includes eligibility, adverse events/toxicity, QoL, patient costs, and dosimetry parameters (contouring, planning, quality assurance, treatment data). These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of a decision analytic model.
Centres will be asked to provide two retrospective and one prospective patient but this will have to be varied according to the availability of retrospective patients at each participating centre. Each centre will be provided with details of case selection.
Data collected directly from patients will include QoL and toxicity data as well as costs incurred by the patient as a result of their treatment.
Study Protocol B IMRT versus 3DCRT in Anal Cancer:
The anal canal study methodology applies the ANROTAT framework and includes a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL/toxicity evaluation, and healthcare resource usage. This involves the collection of data from 30 patients. Data collection includes eligibility, adverse events/toxicity, QoL, patient costs, and dosimetry parameters (contouring, planning, quality assurance, treatment data). These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of a decision analytic model.
Participating centres will be asked to provide data on the contouring and planning of a CT data set that will be sent to each of the participating centres. Following this, each participating centre will plan 3 retrospective patient cases each. In addition to this, data will be collected from 10 prospective anal cancer patients who will be asked to complete QoL and patient cost questionnaires.
Study Protocol C IMRT versus 3DCRT in NPC:
The nasopharynx study methodology applies the ANROTAT framework and includes a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL/toxicity evaluation, and healthcare resource usage. This involves the collection of data from 30 patients for the dosimetry component and 150 patients for the QoL component.
Data collection includes eligibility, adverse events/toxicity, QoL, patient costs, and dosimetry parameters (contouring, planning, quality assurance, treatment data). These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of a decision analytic model.
Participating centres will be asked to provide data on the contouring of a CT data set that will be sent to each of the participating centres. Following this, the dosimetry component will require centres to recruit as many prospective patients as possible to collect the above mentioned data. Due to the short time frame, if 30 prospective patients cannot be recruited in the time frame, this will be supplemented with retrospective cases. In addition to this, data will be collected from 150 nasopharynx patients who will be asked to complete QoL and patient cost questionnaires.
Study Protocol D IGRT versus non IGRT in Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer:
The IGRT study methodology applies the ANROTAT framework and includes a series of component studies including a dosimetric evaluation, a QoL/toxicity evaluation, and healthcare resource usage. This involves the collection of data from 30 prospective patients.
Data collection includes eligibility, adverse events/toxicity, QoL, patient costs, and dosimetry parameters. These data will be used in conjunction with evidence from the existing literature and expert opinion to inform the construction of a decision analytic model.
Data collected directly from patients will include QoL and toxicity data as well as costs incurred by the patient as a result of their treatment.
Study design
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Study Protocol A - IMRT Post Prostatectomy | – | Other: Non-Interventional Study* Prospective TROG 08.03 (RAVES) Participants * Prospective Participants (NOT participating in TROG 08.03 (RAVES)) * Retrospective TROG 08.03 (RAVES) Participants * Participating in dosimetric evaluation and toxicity/QoL study * Participating in dosimetric evaluation only |
| Study Protocol B - IMRT Anal Cancer | – | Other: Non-Interventional Study* Retrospective Patient Datasets * Prospective Participants (dosimetric evaluation and toxicity/QoL study) |
| Study Protocol C - IMRT Nasopharynx | – | Other: Non-Interventional Study* Retrospective Patient Datasets * Prospective Participants (dosimetric evaluation and toxicity/QoL study) * Post-Treatment Prospective Participants (toxicity/QoL and cost study) |
| Study Protocol D - IGRT Intact Prostate | – | –Patients with prostate cancer - A sample of 30 patients from at least 10 centres that are to be treated for intermediate risk prostate cancer will be enrolled. The sample will be selected to comprise at least 10 patients that will undergo non-IGRT, 10 that will undergo IGRT with fiducials and planar imaging, and 10 that will undergo IGRT with volumetric imaging. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Study Protocol A - IMRT Post Prostatectomy: Patients with prostate cancer (post prostatectomy) Study Protocol B - IMRT Anal Cancer: Patients with anal cancer Study Protocol C - IMRT Nasopharynx: Patients with nasopharynx cancer Study Protocol D - IGRT Intact Prostate: Patients with prostate cancer
Key inclusion criteria (0 listed)
Key exclusion criteria (49 listed)
- Previous pelvic RT or surgery ie previous rectal or bladder resection
- Concurrent or previous malignancy within 5 years prior to registration (except non-melanomatous skin cancer)
- Androgen deprivation (AD) prior to or following RP as this will affect QoL
- Evidence of nodal or distant metastases
- Clinical or imaging evidence of local recurrence
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Interventional StudyThis is a non-interventional study | Other | Study Protocol A - IMRT Post Prostatectomy, Study Protocol B - IMRT Anal Cancer, Study Protocol C - IMRT Nasopharynx |
Primary outcome
Comparison of dosimetry between treatment plans prepared using IMRT/IGRT vs 3DCRT/Non IGRT as a surrogate for effectiveness and safety.
Time frame: 6 Months
Measured By: 1. Tumour control estimated from surrogate physical dose endpoints with each of the new technologies as compared with standard therapy. 2. The likelihood of acute or long term damage to organ/tissue and resultant likelihood of impairment of function or QoL estimated from surrogate physical dose endpoints with each of the new technologies as compared with standard therapy.
Obtain Data on the impact of disease and treatment on QoL
Time frame: 6 months
Measured by 1. QALYs gained, and cost-per-QALY gained 2. The likely cost increases or savings resulting from differences in acute or long term toxicity.
Compare the resource usage associated with the planning and delivery of the new technologies compared to the conventional standard approaches
Time frame: 6 months
1. The differences in time and resources required for preparation, planning, quality assurance (QA) checking and treatment for each of the new technologies as compared with standard therapy. 2. The likely cost increases or savings associated with differences in time and resources involved in the management of patients with each of the new technologies as compared with standard therapy.
Synthesise the data obtained for objectives 1-3 together with information from previous studies and expert opinion to estimate the safety, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of new technologies compared to conventional standards
Time frame: 6 months
1. QALYs gained, and cost-per-QALY gained
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Feb 2013.
- Click here for more information about this study on the TROG official websiteLink provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Prostate Cancer (Post Prostatectomy)
Recruiting
The Application of Somatosensory Interactive Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Men Underwent Radical Prostatectomy
Prostate Cancer (Post Prostatectomy)
Active, not recruiting
Daily Adaptive Post-Prostatectomy With Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy in Patients With Prostate Cancer
Malignant Prostate Neoplasm
Not yet recruiting
SURPASS: Stereotactic Ultra-hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Post-prostatectomy Patients: Adaptive Salvage SBRT
Prostate Adenocarcinoma
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Apalutamide in Treating Patients With Prostate Cancer Before Radical Prostatectomy
Prostate Adenocarcinoma, Stage IIB Prostate Cancer AJCC v8
Not yet recruiting
Non-inferiority Trial Omitting Drainage After Robot-assisted Radical prostatectomY
Prostate 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.
Bryan Burmeister study chair
Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group
15 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Prostate Cancer (Post Prostatectomy) and Anal Cancer, run by Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group at 15 sites in Australia.
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 0 inclusion and 49 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 13 Feb 2013. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 15 sites in Australia. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Comparison of dosimetry between treatment plans prepared using IMRT/IGRT vs 3DCRT/Non IGRT as a surrogate for effectiveness and safety. (time frame: 6 Months). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. 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 13 Feb 2013.