Rectal CancerPhase 3ELRRvsLTMENCT01609504
ELRR by TEM Versus Laparoscopic TME in iT2N0M0 SMALL LOW RECTAL CANCER
A Phase 3 study testing ELRR BY TEM and LTME in people with Rectal Cancer, run by University of Roma La Sapienza.
Trial summary
The present prospective randomized study investigated the results of ELRR (ENDOLUMINAL LOCO-REGIONAL RESECTION BY TRANSANAL ENDOSCOPIC MICROSURGERY) versus LTME (LAPAROSCOPIC TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION) in the management of 100 patients with iT2N0M0 small low rectal cancer after Neoadjuvant Treatment. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Rectal Cancer
- What is being tested?
- ELRR BY TEM and LTME
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 283 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Apr 1997to Apr 2004
- Phase
- Phase 3
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Tumor located within 6 cm from the anal verge
- Tumor diameter not larger than 3 cm, and staged as iT2, N0, G1-2
Who cannot join
- Patients classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) 3 or 4
About this study
Official title: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial: Endoluminal Loco-regional Resection (ELRR) by Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) in it2n0m0 Small Low Rectal Cancer
The present prospective randomized study investigated the results of ELRR (ENDOLUMINAL LOCO-REGIONAL RESECTION BY TRANSANAL ENDOSCOPIC MICROSURGERY) versus LTME (LAPAROSCOPIC TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION) in the management of 100 patients with iT2N0M0 small low rectal cancer after Neoadjuvant Treatment.
Read the detailed description
From April 1997 to April 2004, patients with cT2 rectal cancer and no suspicion for positive lymph-nodes or distant metastases (cN0 M0) were enrolled in this study.
History, routine laboratory tests including tumour markers, digital examination to evaluate tumour fixation and sphincter tone, clinical evaluation, were recorded for each patient in a data base.
At admission, staging included: 1) endorectal ultrasound (EUS) 2) rigid rectoscopy and tumour biopsies; 3) total colonoscopy with vital dye staining of the rectum and 6-8 standard biopsies of normal mucosa at a distance of approximately 1 cm around the tumour with India ink tattooing of biopsy sites; 4) helical Total Body Computerized Tomography (CT), and 5) pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Rigid rectoscopy was performed in order to measure the exact distance of the tumour from the anal verge and to select the most appropriate patient's position on the operative table in case of TEM surgery.
Positive lymph-node status at imaging was established according to the following criteria:
- at EUS, diameter > 0.8 cm, circular or irregular shape, hypervascularization at colour Doppler and hypoechogenicity.
- at CT and MRI, diameter of > 0.8 cm, circular or irregular shape. All patients with suspicious nodes or contradictory response at EUS, CT or MRI T staging were not enrolled in the present study.
Inclusion criteria were: tumour located within 6 cm from the anal verge, tumour diameter not larger than 3 cm, and staged as cT2 N0 M0, G1-2. Patients classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) 3 or 4 were excluded.
All patients underwent preoperative radiotherapy. The total dose given was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions over 5 weeks. The irradiated areas were: anus, rectum, mesorectum, regional and iliac lymph-nodes. Continuous infusion of 5-FU 200 mg/m2/day was performed during radiotherapy treatment.
Forty days after the end of NT, staging as described above (except for total colonoscopy) was repeated. Downsizing was classified in two groups: patients with tumour mass reduction more than 50% (responders) and patients with tumour mass reduction less than 50% (low or non responders). According to the study protocol, patients with disease progression were excluded.
Randomization was performed the day before operation. Patients were stratified in two groups and subsequently allocated 1:1 to the two arms of the study, ELRR by TEM (arm A) or LTME (arm B) by means of sealed opaque envelopes containing computer-generated random numbers. In the end, 50 patients underwent ELRR by TEM (arm A) and 50 patients underwent laparoscopic resection (LTME) (laparoscopic low anterior resection or abdominal-perineal resection) (arm B). The recruitment was interrupted when 100 patients had undergone operation.
Surgery was performed between 45 and 55 days after the end of radio-chemotherapy. Preoperative washout of the colon (polyethyleneglycol) and short-term antibiotic prophylaxis (metronidazole and second generation cephalosporin) were administered to all patients. Surgical procedures were performed only by two surgeons expert in open rectal surgery and skilled in both laparoscopic and TEM procedures.
TEM procedures were performed with the Wolf Company (Tuttlingen, Germany) instrumentation. The surgical technique of ELRR was as follows: mucosal incision included all the tattoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumour, according to its diameter before NT. Starting from the mucosal incision the dissection was continued deeply in order to remove all the mesorectum adjacent to the tumour, following a cutting line with an angle of approximatively 120-135° with respect to the mucosal plane. For posterior and lateral lesions the bottom dissection plane was carried down to the "holy plane" and for anterior lesions to the level of the vagina septum or the prostatic capsule. In case of tumour with the distal limit at the level of the anal canal, the incision included the dentate line and the internal sphincter fibres were partially removed. For distal tumours, in order to maintain the CO2 rectum insufflation it is recommended to adjust the rectoscope axis so as to keep its inferior circumference adherent to the anal canal. In all patients the defect was closed by multiple running stitches, according to the technique described by Buess.
The surgical technique of Arm B was laparoscopic low anterior resection or abdominal perineal resection.
Primary endpoint in this study was the oncological result in terms of local recurrence, distant metastases and cancer related mortality with minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Secondary endpoints were: operative time, blood loss, analgesic use, morbidity, hospital stay and 30 day mortality. Major morbidity was defined as complications requiring surgical treatment. In order to evaluate local and/or systemic recurrence, all patients were prospectively followed-up by clinical examination, tumour markers' assay and rectoscopy every 3 months for the first 3 years, then every six months. Total body CT, and pelvic MRI were repeated every 6 months for the first 5 years. According to the study protocol, no adjuvant therapy was administered, as recommended by the consultant oncologist in T2N0 rectal cancer patients.
- Conditions
- Rectal Cancer
- Being tested
- ELRR BY TEM, LTME
- Keywords
- Rectal cancer, Radiochemotherapy, Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery, Laparoscopic Resection
- Medical subject headings
- Rectal Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ELRR BY TEMProcedure or surgery
Also called FULL-THICKNESS + FAT EXCISION BY TEM
The surgical technique of ELRR was as follows: mucosal incision included all the tatoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumor, according to its diameter before NT
LTMEProcedure or surgery
Also called LAPAROSCOPIC LOW ANTERIOR/ABDOMINO-PERINEAL RESECTION
LAPAROSCOPIC TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION INCLUDING MESORECTAL (ACCORDING TO HEALD CRITERIA)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery | Experimental | Patients were treated by TEM as follows: mucosal incision included all the tatoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumor, according to its diameter before NT (ELRR- Endo Luminal Loco Regional Resection) Receives: Procedure: ELRR BY TEM |
| Total Mesorectal Excision | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Procedure: LTME |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
oncological result in term of local and/or systematic recurrence
To evaluate local and/or systematic recurrence, all patients were followed up prospectively by clinical examination, measurement of tumour markers and sigmoidoscopy every 3 months for the first 3 years, and every 6 months thereafter. Whole-body CT and pelvic MRI were repeated every 6 months for the first 5 year. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 5 years.
Measured: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60 months after operation
Secondary outcomes (7)
Morbidity
No. of patients with postoperative complications
Measured: participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 3 and 6 days each group
operative time
operative time (minutes)
Measured: operative time
blood loss
blood loss (ml)
Measured: during time of operation
analgesic use
No. of patients receiving analgesia
Measured: participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 3 and 6 days each group
30 day mortality
No. of patients died within 30 days from operation
Measured: at 30 days from operation
hospital stay
hospital stay (days)
Measured: participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 3 and 6 days each group
cancer-related mortality
No. of patients died for cancer. To evaluate local and/or systemic recurrence, all patients were followed up prospectively. After 5 year every 12 months. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 5 years
Measured: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60 months after operation
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Jun 2012 (estimated)
- Study startApr 1997
- Primary completionApr 2004
- Study completionApr 2004
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Rectal CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Roma La SapienzaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 283 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Roma La Sapienza
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Università Politecnica delle Marche
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Lezoche Emanuele, University of Roma La Sapienza
- Investigators
- Emanuele Lezoche, Pr, Principal investigator, university Sapienza of Rome, Italy
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01609504
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- URBINO-LEZ-1995
- Acronym
- ELRRvsLTME
- Status last verified
- May 2012
- First submitted
- 15 Sep 2011
- Last updated
- 1 Jun 2012
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Motamedi MAK, Mak NT, Brown CJ, Raval MJ, Karimuddin AA, Giustini D, Phang PT. Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 13;6(6):CD002198. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002198.pub3.
PubMed 37310167Lezoche E, Baldarelli M, Lezoche G, Paganini AM, Gesuita R, Guerrieri M. Randomized clinical trial of endoluminal locoregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Br J Surg. 2012 Sep;99(9):1211-8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8821.
PubMed 22864880
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jun 2012. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial: Endoluminal Loco-regional Resection (ELRR) by Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) in it2n0m0 Small Low Rectal Cancer
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01609504
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ELRRvsLTME / URBINO-LEZ-1995
- Conditions
- Rectal Cancer
- Keywords
- Rectal cancer, Radiochemotherapy, Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery, Laparoscopic Resection
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 283 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Roma La SapienzaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Università Politecnica delle Marche
- Study start
- Apr 1997
- Primary completion
- Apr 2004 (actual)
- Study completion
- Apr 2004 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Jun 2012 (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 present prospective randomized study investigated the results of ELRR (ENDOLUMINAL LOCO-REGIONAL RESECTION BY TRANSANAL ENDOSCOPIC MICROSURGERY) versus LTME (LAPAROSCOPIC TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION) in the management of 100 patients with iT2N0M0 small low rectal cancer after Neoadjuvant Treatment.
Detailed description
From April 1997 to April 2004, patients with cT2 rectal cancer and no suspicion for positive lymph-nodes or distant metastases (cN0 M0) were enrolled in this study.
History, routine laboratory tests including tumour markers, digital examination to evaluate tumour fixation and sphincter tone, clinical evaluation, were recorded for each patient in a data base.
At admission, staging included: 1) endorectal ultrasound (EUS) 2) rigid rectoscopy and tumour biopsies; 3) total colonoscopy with vital dye staining of the rectum and 6-8 standard biopsies of normal mucosa at a distance of approximately 1 cm around the tumour with India ink tattooing of biopsy sites; 4) helical Total Body Computerized Tomography (CT), and 5) pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Rigid rectoscopy was performed in order to measure the exact distance of the tumour from the anal verge and to select the most appropriate patient's position on the operative table in case of TEM surgery.
Positive lymph-node status at imaging was established according to the following criteria:
- at EUS, diameter > 0.8 cm, circular or irregular shape, hypervascularization at colour Doppler and hypoechogenicity.
- at CT and MRI, diameter of > 0.8 cm, circular or irregular shape. All patients with suspicious nodes or contradictory response at EUS, CT or MRI T staging were not enrolled in the present study.
Inclusion criteria were: tumour located within 6 cm from the anal verge, tumour diameter not larger than 3 cm, and staged as cT2 N0 M0, G1-2. Patients classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) 3 or 4 were excluded.
All patients underwent preoperative radiotherapy. The total dose given was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions over 5 weeks. The irradiated areas were: anus, rectum, mesorectum, regional and iliac lymph-nodes. Continuous infusion of 5-FU 200 mg/m2/day was performed during radiotherapy treatment.
Forty days after the end of NT, staging as described above (except for total colonoscopy) was repeated. Downsizing was classified in two groups: patients with tumour mass reduction more than 50% (responders) and patients with tumour mass reduction less than 50% (low or non responders). According to the study protocol, patients with disease progression were excluded.
Randomization was performed the day before operation. Patients were stratified in two groups and subsequently allocated 1:1 to the two arms of the study, ELRR by TEM (arm A) or LTME (arm B) by means of sealed opaque envelopes containing computer-generated random numbers. In the end, 50 patients underwent ELRR by TEM (arm A) and 50 patients underwent laparoscopic resection (LTME) (laparoscopic low anterior resection or abdominal-perineal resection) (arm B). The recruitment was interrupted when 100 patients had undergone operation.
Surgery was performed between 45 and 55 days after the end of radio-chemotherapy. Preoperative washout of the colon (polyethyleneglycol) and short-term antibiotic prophylaxis (metronidazole and second generation cephalosporin) were administered to all patients. Surgical procedures were performed only by two surgeons expert in open rectal surgery and skilled in both laparoscopic and TEM procedures.
TEM procedures were performed with the Wolf Company (Tuttlingen, Germany) instrumentation. The surgical technique of ELRR was as follows: mucosal incision included all the tattoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumour, according to its diameter before NT. Starting from the mucosal incision the dissection was continued deeply in order to remove all the mesorectum adjacent to the tumour, following a cutting line with an angle of approximatively 120-135° with respect to the mucosal plane. For posterior and lateral lesions the bottom dissection plane was carried down to the "holy plane" and for anterior lesions to the level of the vagina septum or the prostatic capsule. In case of tumour with the distal limit at the level of the anal canal, the incision included the dentate line and the internal sphincter fibres were partially removed. For distal tumours, in order to maintain the CO2 rectum insufflation it is recommended to adjust the rectoscope axis so as to keep its inferior circumference adherent to the anal canal. In all patients the defect was closed by multiple running stitches, according to the technique described by Buess.
The surgical technique of Arm B was laparoscopic low anterior resection or abdominal perineal resection.
Primary endpoint in this study was the oncological result in terms of local recurrence, distant metastases and cancer related mortality with minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Secondary endpoints were: operative time, blood loss, analgesic use, morbidity, hospital stay and 30 day mortality. Major morbidity was defined as complications requiring surgical treatment. In order to evaluate local and/or systemic recurrence, all patients were prospectively followed-up by clinical examination, tumour markers' assay and rectoscopy every 3 months for the first 3 years, then every six months. Total body CT, and pelvic MRI were repeated every 6 months for the first 5 years. According to the study protocol, no adjuvant therapy was administered, as recommended by the consultant oncologist in T2N0 rectal cancer patients.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery | Experimental | Procedure: ELRR BY TEMPatients were treated by TEM as follows: mucosal incision included all the tatoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumor, according to its diameter before NT (ELRR- Endo Luminal Loco Regional Resection) |
| Total Mesorectal Excision | Active comparator | Procedure: LTME |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Tumor located within 6 cm from the anal verge
- Tumor diameter not larger than 3 cm, and staged as iT2, N0, G1-2
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) 3 or 4
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 |
|---|---|---|
| ELRR BY TEMAlso: FULL-THICKNESS + FAT EXCISION BY TEMThe surgical technique of ELRR was as follows: mucosal incision included all the tatoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumor, according to its diameter before NT | Procedure or surgery | Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery |
| LTMEAlso: LAPAROSCOPIC LOW ANTERIOR/ABDOMINO-PERINEAL RESECTIONLAPAROSCOPIC TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION INCLUDING MESORECTAL (ACCORDING TO HEALD CRITERIA) | Procedure or surgery | Total Mesorectal Excision |
Primary outcome
oncological result in term of local and/or systematic recurrence
Time frame: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60 months after operation
To evaluate local and/or systematic recurrence, all patients were followed up prospectively by clinical examination, measurement of tumour markers and sigmoidoscopy every 3 months for the first 3 years, and every 6 months thereafter. Whole-body CT and pelvic MRI were repeated every 6 months for the first 5 year. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 5 years.
7 secondary outcomes
Morbidity
Time frame: participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 3 and 6 days each group
operative time
Time frame: operative time
blood loss
Time frame: during time of operation
analgesic use
Time frame: participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 3 and 6 days each group
30 day mortality
Time frame: at 30 days from operation
hospital stay
Time frame: participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 3 and 6 days each group
cancer-related mortality
Time frame: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60 months after operation
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 1 Jun 2012.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37310167Motamedi MAK, Mak NT, Brown CJ, Raval MJ, Karimuddin AA, Giustini D, Phang PT. Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 13;6(6):CD002198. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002198.pub3.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22864880Lezoche E, Baldarelli M, Lezoche G, Paganini AM, Gesuita R, Guerrieri M. Randomized clinical trial of endoluminal locoregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Br J Surg. 2012 Sep;99(9):1211-8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8821.
Related trials for Rectal Cancer
RecruitingPhase 1
A Study to Learn About the Study Medicine Called PF-08032562 in People With Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors
Advanced Breast Cancer, Metastatic Breast Cancer (HR+/ HER2-)
RecruitingObservational study
Evaluation for NCI Surgery Branch Clinical Research Protocols
Synovial Cell Cancer, Melanoma
RecruitingObservational study
Myopenia and Mechanisms of Chemotherapy Toxicity in Older Adults With Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Cancer, Sarcopenia
Not yet recruiting
Mind-Body Interventions for the Improvement of Quality of Life, Stress, and Sleep Quality Among Survivors of Breast, Prostate, Endometrial, or Colorectal Cancer
Breast Cancer Stage I, Colorectal Cancer
Recruiting
A Web-Based Dyadic Intervention for Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Carcinoma
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.
Emanuele Lezoche, Pr principal investigator
university Sapienza of Rome, Italy
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing ELRR BY TEM and LTME in people with Rectal Cancer, run by University of Roma La Sapienza.
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 2 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 1 Jun 2012. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
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?
oncological result in term of local and/or systematic recurrence (time frame: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60 months after operation). 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 NCT01609504, which also lists 2 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 1 Jun 2012.