Colorectal CancerPhase 3NCT01862562
Trial to Evaluate Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery in Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients
A Phase 3 study testing Open surgery and Laparoscopic surgery in people with Colorectal Cancer, run by Shoichi Fujii, MD, PhD at 1 site in Japan.
Trial summary
Elderly patients have poorer preoperative conditions than younger patients. Therefore, minimally invasive surgery should be an effective treatment method for elderly patients. The investigators conducted a randomized trial that compared laparoscopic surgery and conventional open surgery in elderly patients who were 75… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 75 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Colorectal Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Open surgery and Laparoscopic surgery
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 200 participants
- Where
- 1 siteJapan
- Study dates
- Aug 2008to Aug 2017
- 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 75 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age of 75 years old or over
- Histologically proven adenocarcinoma
- Clinical tumor penetrates visceral peritoneum (T4a), no metastasis (M0) or lower T factor
- Elective operation
- Tolerable surgery under general anesthesia
- No bulky tumor larger than 8cm in diameter
- No history of laparotomy for colorectal resection except appendectomy
- Provided written informed consent
Who cannot join
- Synchronous or metachronous (within 5 years) malignancy in another organ except carcinoma in situ
- Multiple colorectal cancer that needs reconstruction two or more times
- Acute intestinal obstruction or perforation due to colorectal cancer
- Lower rectal cancer that required pelvic side wall lymphadenectomy
- Pregnant or lactating women
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Japan1 site
Yokohama City University Medical Center
Yokohama, Kanagawa, 232-0024
About this study
Official title: Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery in Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients Who Were 75 Years Old or Over
Elderly patients have poorer preoperative conditions than younger patients. Therefore, minimally invasive surgery should be an effective treatment method for elderly patients. The investigators conducted a randomized trial that compared laparoscopic surgery and conventional open surgery in elderly patients who were 75 years old or over. The purpose of the present study was to clarify the effect of laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients. In our hypothesis of this trial, laparoscopic surgery is superior to conventional open surgery in short-term results, and same outcome in long -term results. Therefore, laparoscopic surgery would be recommended as standard procedure in an elderly colorectal patient.
Read the detailed description
Patients
- This was a randomized controlled trial conducted at a single institute, which was Yokohama City University Medical Center (Japan).
- 200 patients were age of 75 years old or over were randomly allocated to receive laparoscopic surgery or conventional open surgery.
Surgical procedures
- All surgical procedures were performed by one specialized colorectal treatment team. The laparoscopic surgeries were performed by a surgeon who passed the skill accreditation system for laparoscopic gastroenterological surgery was established by the Japanese Society for Endoscopic Surgery (JSES), and all open surgeries were performed under the supervision of these skillful surgeons.
- All operations were performed according to the standard radical cure procedure described in the seventh edition of the Japanese General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Cancer of the Colon, Rectum and Anus. That is, intestinal excision with lymph node dissection that separated the feeding blood vessel at its origin was performed in all surgical procedures. Patients who underwent palliative partial excision were not included.
- In the laparoscopic surgery, a medial-to-lateral approach was performed in all patients.
- In the conventional open surgery, the first procedure was done in lateral approach. The reconstruction techniques were the same as those used in laparoscopic surgery.
Randomization
- To balance the operative backgrounds between the laparoscopic and the conventional open surgery groups, the patients were stratified by the tumor location (right colon, left colon and rectum).
- A transverse colon cancer was allocated to the right colon group, and a rectosigmoid cancer was allocated to the rectum group.
Adjuvant therapy
- When the pathological stage was diagnosed as stage 3 by histological examination of the resected specimen, adjuvant chemotherapy was done with oral fluoropyrimidine anti-cancer drug.
- Neither radiation therapy nor preoperative chemotherapy was given to any patient. Preoperative chemo-radiotherapy even for rectal cancer is not yet standard treatment in Japan.
Assessment parameters
- The preoperative parameters
- Operative assessment parameters
- Postoperative assessment parameters An early postoperative complication was defined as a complication that occurred between the finish of the operation and postoperative day 30. A late postoperative complication was defined as a complication that occurred after postoperative day 30. The terminologies of complications were classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0, and grading was done by Classification of Surgical Complication.
- The pathological results were recorded according to the 7th edition of the Japanese General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Cancer of the Colon, Rectum and Anus and 7th edition of primary tumor, regional nodes, metastasis (TNM) classification. Circumferential margin involvement was defined as exposure of a cancer cell at the vertical dissection surface on histological examination.
- Quality of life (QOL) scores. The QOL score was measured using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2.0. It is a tool that measures health-related QOL (HRQOL) according to an inclusive standard and not a disease-specific standard. The SF-36 is composed of 36 questions. The score is expressed numerically by the provided scoring algorithm. SF-36 questionnaires were sent to the patients at one month, 6 months and one year after the surgery by postal mail. A return envelope was enclosed with the SF-36 questionnaire, and the patient sent it back to the research secretariat by postal mail. A questionnaire on the defecation situation and wound pain besides the SF-36 was added all three times. The question of when complete rehabilitation occurred was added in the questionnaire at one year.
Follow-up schedule
- The follow-up schedule was as follows according to stage. Patients with stages 0 and 1 were followed up with outpatient examinations including tumor marker measurements, and chest, abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) once a year for five years. Patients with stage 2 and 3a were examined by CT and tumor marker measurements every six months for the first two years. These examinations were done once a year from the third year to the fifth year. Patients with stage 3b and 3c were examined by CT and tumor marker measurements every four months for the first two years, and every six months from the third year to the fifth year.
Statistical analysis
- The primary endpoint was early complication rate.
- The secondary endpoints were 5-year overall survival, 3-year recurrence-free survival, length of postoperative hospital stay, and HRQOL score.
- A sample size of 200 patients was assured to achieve a power of more than 80% to detect a difference between the groups using a two-sided Chi-squared test with type I error rate equal to 0.05, when the true complication rates were 20% and 40% for the laparoscopic and open surgeries, respectively.
- For continuous variables, data are presented as means ± standard deviation (SD). For categorical variables, data are presented as frequencies and percentages (%). Comparison of the endpoints was based on intention-to-treat principle, that is, the patients who switched to another group during surgery were treated as members of the allocated group. The Chi-squared test was applied to evaluate the significance of differences in proportions, and t-test was used to evaluate the significance of differences in continuous variables. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
- Conditions
- Colorectal Cancer
- Being tested
- Open surgery, Laparoscopic surgery
- Keywords
- Laparoscopic surgery, Colorectal cancer, Elderly patient, Randomized control study
- Medical subject headings
- Colorectal Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Open surgeryProcedure or surgery
Also called Open
Conventional technique
Laparoscopic surgeryProcedure or surgery
Also called Laparoscopic
New minimum invasive technique
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Open surgery | Active comparator | Conventional procedure Receives: Procedure: Open surgery |
| Laparoscopic surgery | Experimental | Minimum invasive procedure Receives: Procedure: Laparoscopic surgery |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Early complication rate
All complication due to surgical procedure within 30 days after surgery
Measured: 30 days after surgery
Secondary outcomes (4)
Overall survival
All death is defined as an event of overall survival. The overall survival rate is appropriate to evaluate whether laparoscopic surgery influences survival which is the true target of malignant disease treatment for curable colorectal cancer by surgery.
Measured: 5 years
Recurrence-free survival
All death and recurrence from colorectal cancer are defined as an event of recurrence-free survival.
Measured: 3 years
Length of postoperative hospital stay
Length of postoperative hospital stay is defined as a duration between surgery and first discharge. An expected average is 9days.
Measured: 9 days
Health-related QOL score
Short-Form 36 (SF36) is used for measurement of Health-related QOL score. SF-36 questionnaires were sent to the patients at one month, 6 months and one year after the surgery by postal mail. A return envelope was enclosed with the SF-36 questionnaire, and the patient sent it back to the research secretariat by postal mail. A questionnaire on the defecation situation and wound pain besides the SF-36 was added all three times. The question of when complete rehabilitation occurred was added in the questionnaire at one year.
Measured: 1 year after surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 May 2013 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2008
- Primary completionAug 2012
- Study completionAug 2017 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Colorectal CancerStudies 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 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Shoichi Fujii, MD, PhD
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Shoichi Fujii, MD, PhD, Yokohama City University Medical Center
- Investigators
- Chikara Kunisaki, Professor, Study chair, Yokohama City University, Gastroenterological Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01862562
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- YCUMC-D1108015
- Other IDs
- YokohamaCUMC34
- Status last verified
- Nov 2013
- First submitted
- 16 May 2013
- Last updated
- 26 Nov 2013
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Ishibe A, Ota M, Fujii S, Suwa Y, Suzuki S, Suwa H, Momiyama M, Watanabe J, Watanabe K, Taguri M, Kunisaki C, Endo I. Midterm follow-up of a randomized trial of open surgery versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):3890-3897. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5418-z. Epub 2017 Feb 15.
PubMed 28205033
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Nov 2013. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery in Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients Who Were 75 Years Old or Over
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01862562
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- YCUMC-D1108015
- Conditions
- Colorectal Cancer
- Keywords
- Laparoscopic surgery, Colorectal cancer, Elderly patient, Randomized control study
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Shoichi Fujii, MD, PhDUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2008
- Primary completion
- Aug 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2017 (estimated)
- First posted
- 24 May 2013 (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.
Elderly patients have poorer preoperative conditions than younger patients. Therefore, minimally invasive surgery should be an effective treatment method for elderly patients. The investigators conducted a randomized trial that compared laparoscopic surgery and conventional open surgery in elderly patients who were 75 years old or over. The purpose of the present study was to clarify the effect of laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients. In our hypothesis of this trial, laparoscopic surgery is superior to conventional open surgery in short-term results, and same outcome in long -term results. Therefore, laparoscopic surgery would be recommended as standard procedure in an elderly colorectal patient.
Detailed description
Patients
- This was a randomized controlled trial conducted at a single institute, which was Yokohama City University Medical Center (Japan).
- 200 patients were age of 75 years old or over were randomly allocated to receive laparoscopic surgery or conventional open surgery.
Surgical procedures
- All surgical procedures were performed by one specialized colorectal treatment team. The laparoscopic surgeries were performed by a surgeon who passed the skill accreditation system for laparoscopic gastroenterological surgery was established by the Japanese Society for Endoscopic Surgery (JSES), and all open surgeries were performed under the supervision of these skillful surgeons.
- All operations were performed according to the standard radical cure procedure described in the seventh edition of the Japanese General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Cancer of the Colon, Rectum and Anus. That is, intestinal excision with lymph node dissection that separated the feeding blood vessel at its origin was performed in all surgical procedures. Patients who underwent palliative partial excision were not included.
- In the laparoscopic surgery, a medial-to-lateral approach was performed in all patients.
- In the conventional open surgery, the first procedure was done in lateral approach. The reconstruction techniques were the same as those used in laparoscopic surgery.
Randomization
- To balance the operative backgrounds between the laparoscopic and the conventional open surgery groups, the patients were stratified by the tumor location (right colon, left colon and rectum).
- A transverse colon cancer was allocated to the right colon group, and a rectosigmoid cancer was allocated to the rectum group.
Adjuvant therapy
- When the pathological stage was diagnosed as stage 3 by histological examination of the resected specimen, adjuvant chemotherapy was done with oral fluoropyrimidine anti-cancer drug.
- Neither radiation therapy nor preoperative chemotherapy was given to any patient. Preoperative chemo-radiotherapy even for rectal cancer is not yet standard treatment in Japan.
Assessment parameters
- The preoperative parameters
- Operative assessment parameters
- Postoperative assessment parameters An early postoperative complication was defined as a complication that occurred between the finish of the operation and postoperative day 30. A late postoperative complication was defined as a complication that occurred after postoperative day 30. The terminologies of complications were classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0, and grading was done by Classification of Surgical Complication.
- The pathological results were recorded according to the 7th edition of the Japanese General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Cancer of the Colon, Rectum and Anus and 7th edition of primary tumor, regional nodes, metastasis (TNM) classification. Circumferential margin involvement was defined as exposure of a cancer cell at the vertical dissection surface on histological examination.
- Quality of life (QOL) scores. The QOL score was measured using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2.0. It is a tool that measures health-related QOL (HRQOL) according to an inclusive standard and not a disease-specific standard. The SF-36 is composed of 36 questions. The score is expressed numerically by the provided scoring algorithm. SF-36 questionnaires were sent to the patients at one month, 6 months and one year after the surgery by postal mail. A return envelope was enclosed with the SF-36 questionnaire, and the patient sent it back to the research secretariat by postal mail. A questionnaire on the defecation situation and wound pain besides the SF-36 was added all three times. The question of when complete rehabilitation occurred was added in the questionnaire at one year.
Follow-up schedule
- The follow-up schedule was as follows according to stage. Patients with stages 0 and 1 were followed up with outpatient examinations including tumor marker measurements, and chest, abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) once a year for five years. Patients with stage 2 and 3a were examined by CT and tumor marker measurements every six months for the first two years. These examinations were done once a year from the third year to the fifth year. Patients with stage 3b and 3c were examined by CT and tumor marker measurements every four months for the first two years, and every six months from the third year to the fifth year.
Statistical analysis
- The primary endpoint was early complication rate.
- The secondary endpoints were 5-year overall survival, 3-year recurrence-free survival, length of postoperative hospital stay, and HRQOL score.
- A sample size of 200 patients was assured to achieve a power of more than 80% to detect a difference between the groups using a two-sided Chi-squared test with type I error rate equal to 0.05, when the true complication rates were 20% and 40% for the laparoscopic and open surgeries, respectively.
- For continuous variables, data are presented as means ± standard deviation (SD). For categorical variables, data are presented as frequencies and percentages (%). Comparison of the endpoints was based on intention-to-treat principle, that is, the patients who switched to another group during surgery were treated as members of the allocated group. The Chi-squared test was applied to evaluate the significance of differences in proportions, and t-test was used to evaluate the significance of differences in continuous variables. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Open surgery | Active comparator | Procedure: Open surgeryConventional procedure |
| Laparoscopic surgery | Experimental | Procedure: Laparoscopic surgeryMinimum invasive procedure |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 75 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Age of 75 years old or over
- Histologically proven adenocarcinoma
- Clinical tumor penetrates visceral peritoneum (T4a), no metastasis (M0) or lower T factor
- Elective operation
- Tolerable surgery under general anesthesia
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Synchronous or metachronous (within 5 years) malignancy in another organ except carcinoma in situ
- Multiple colorectal cancer that needs reconstruction two or more times
- Acute intestinal obstruction or perforation due to colorectal cancer
- Lower rectal cancer that required pelvic side wall lymphadenectomy
- Pregnant or lactating women
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Open surgeryAlso: OpenConventional technique | Procedure or surgery | Open surgery |
| Laparoscopic surgeryAlso: LaparoscopicNew minimum invasive technique | Procedure or surgery | Laparoscopic surgery |
Primary outcome
Early complication rate
Time frame: 30 days after surgery
All complication due to surgical procedure within 30 days after surgery
4 secondary outcomes
Overall survival
Time frame: 5 years
Recurrence-free survival
Time frame: 3 years
Length of postoperative hospital stay
Time frame: 9 days
Health-related QOL score
Time frame: 1 year after surgery
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Nov 2013.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 28205033Ishibe A, Ota M, Fujii S, Suwa Y, Suzuki S, Suwa H, Momiyama M, Watanabe J, Watanabe K, Taguri M, Kunisaki C, Endo I. Midterm follow-up of a randomized trial of open surgery versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):3890-3897. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5418-z. Epub 2017 Feb 15.
Related trials for Colorectal Cancer
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
A Beta-only IL-2 ImmunoTherapY Study
Advanced Solid Tumor, Unresectable Solid Tumor
RecruitingPhase 1
A Study of MGC030 in Participants With Advanced Solid Tumors
Urothelial Cancer, GastroEsophageal Cancer
Active, not recruitingObservational study
The IMPACT Study - Identification of Men With a Genetic Predisposition to ProstAte Cancer
Prostate Cancer, BRCA Mutation
RecruitingObservational study
ABCSG R07 Rectal Cancer Registry
Rectal Cancer, Adenocarcinoma of Rectum
Recruiting
Mainstreaming Genetics: Evaluation of a Digital Application to Scale and Spread Oncologist-initiated Genetic Testing
Cancer, Breast 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.
Chikara Kunisaki, Professor study chair
Yokohama City University, Gastroenterological Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Open surgery and Laparoscopic surgery in people with Colorectal Cancer, run by Shoichi Fujii, MD, PhD at 1 site in Japan.
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 8 inclusion and 5 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 26 Nov 2013. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Japan. 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.
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?
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?
Early complication rate (time frame: 30 days after surgery). 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 NCT01862562, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 26 Nov 2013.