Lung CancerNCT03475420
Post-Treatment Surveillance in Lung Cancer
An observational study of Lung Cancer, run by University of Virginia.
Trial summary
There are 13.7 million Americans currently living with a history of cancer. With continued improvements in cancer treatment and increasing life expectancy, this number is expected to reach nearly 18 million within the next decade. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Lung Cancer
- How many people
- 9,613 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Sep 2014to 31 Dec 2016
- 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 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Subjects with lung cancer and data available in the National Cancer Database
Who may be able to join
- Men or Women
- Diagnosis of surgically resected lung cancer
- American Joint Committee On Cancer (AJCC) stages I-III
Who cannot join
- -
About this study
Official title: Compare Patient-centered Outcomes for Lung Cancer Resection Patients Followed With Alternative Intervals of Surveillance Imaging
There are 13.7 million Americans currently living with a history of cancer. With continued improvements in cancer treatment and increasing life expectancy, this number is expected to reach nearly 18 million within the next decade. The care of these cancer patients, including surveillance during the post-treatment survivorship phase, is an increasingly important major health care concern and expenditure. As the fourth leading diagnosis among cancer survivors, lung cancer is emerging as a chronic problem that currently affects over 450,000 Americans and is expected to grow by nearly 20% by 2022.
Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States. Of the estimated 182,550 patients newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) this year, approximately 35% will present with localized disease and be eligible for curative resection. For patients with limited NSCLC, surgical resection is the most effective method of controlling the primary tumor and provides the best opportunity for cure. A recent analysis by this group demonstrated that the number of lung cancer resections has increased over the past decade, with over 45,000 lung cancer resections performed annually in the US.
Read more
This research will address a critical gap in knowledge because the optimal approach to post-treatment surveillance following lung cancer resection is unknown. The intensity of recommended surveillance visits ranges from every 3 months during the first two years to an annual visit. Imaging modalities range from CT scans to chest radiographs to no routine imaging for asymptomatic patients. The reason for these significant differences is a lack of quality data on lung cancer surveillance and clinical guidelines based largely on small retrospective analyses and expert opinion.
The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) provides real world national lung cancer resection and surveillance data on over 70% of newly diagnosed lung cancers from more than 1,500 institutions. This study will compare the effectiveness of the three most common surveillance intensities (CT scans every 3 months vs. 6 months vs. annually) on the stakeholder selected outcome of survival. All analyses will be risk adjusted for differences in patient characteristics at baseline, including tumor characteristics, patient age, comorbid disease, and other potential confounders. Analyses will also be adjusted for the competing risk of death.
Read the detailed description
This study will use a special study of the National Cancer Database to develop a cohort of NSCLC survivors undergoing surveillance. Cox proportional hazards regression and competing risk analyses will compare the effectiveness of the three most common surveillance intensities (3 months vs. 6 months vs. annually) on survival.
There is also a plan to engage cancer survivors to guide the development of our study comparators, outcomes and demonstration of results.
- Conditions
- Lung Cancer
- Medical subject headings
- Lung Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| National Cancer Database | Use existing data to define surveillance strategy in use for patients in this cohort. We will use 10 randomly selected lung cancer resection patients from each accredited institution with stage I-III NSCLC (potentially curative resection) diagnosed in 2006-2007 and with 5 years of complete follow up or reported as deceased before 2012. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Time to Death
Data elements will include type of surveillance intensity (i.e., 3 month, 6 month or annually) and vital status
Measured: Subjects with data from 2006-2007 and with 5 years of complete follow-up or reported as deceased before 2012
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Mar 2018
- Study start1 Sep 2014
- Primary completion31 Dec 2016
- Study completion31 Dec 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Lung CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of VirginiaThe 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 9,613 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Virginia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Benjamin Kozower, MD, Principal investigator, University of Virginia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03475420
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 17624
- Status last verified
- Mar 2018
- First submitted
- 23 Jan 2018
- Last updated
- 23 Mar 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Mar 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Compare Patient-centered Outcomes for Lung Cancer Resection Patients Followed With Alternative Intervals of Surveillance Imaging
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03475420
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 17624
- Conditions
- Lung Cancer
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 9,613 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of VirginiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
- Study start
- 1 Sep 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Mar 2018 (actual)
- 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.
There are 13.7 million Americans currently living with a history of cancer. With continued improvements in cancer treatment and increasing life expectancy, this number is expected to reach nearly 18 million within the next decade. The care of these cancer patients, including surveillance during the post-treatment survivorship phase, is an increasingly important major health care concern and expenditure. As the fourth leading diagnosis among cancer survivors, lung cancer is emerging as a chronic problem that currently affects over 450,000 Americans and is expected to grow by nearly 20% by 2022.
Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States. Of the estimated 182,550 patients newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) this year, approximately 35% will present with localized disease and be eligible for curative resection. For patients with limited NSCLC, surgical resection is the most effective method of controlling the primary tumor and provides the best opportunity for cure. A recent analysis by this group demonstrated that the number of lung cancer resections has increased over the past decade, with over 45,000 lung cancer resections performed annually in the US.
This research will address a critical gap in knowledge because the optimal approach to post-treatment surveillance following lung cancer resection is unknown. The intensity of recommended surveillance visits ranges from every 3 months during the first two years to an annual visit. Imaging modalities range from CT scans to chest radiographs to no routine imaging for asymptomatic patients. The reason for these significant differences is a lack of quality data on lung cancer surveillance and clinical guidelines based largely on small retrospective analyses and expert opinion.
The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) provides real world national lung cancer resection and surveillance data on over 70% of newly diagnosed lung cancers from more than 1,500 institutions. This study will compare the effectiveness of the three most common surveillance intensities (CT scans every 3 months vs. 6 months vs. annually) on the stakeholder selected outcome of survival. All analyses will be risk adjusted for differences in patient characteristics at baseline, including tumor characteristics, patient age, comorbid disease, and other potential confounders. Analyses will also be adjusted for the competing risk of death.
Detailed description
This study will use a special study of the National Cancer Database to develop a cohort of NSCLC survivors undergoing surveillance. Cox proportional hazards regression and competing risk analyses will compare the effectiveness of the three most common surveillance intensities (3 months vs. 6 months vs. annually) on survival.
There is also a plan to engage cancer survivors to guide the development of our study comparators, outcomes and demonstration of results.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| National Cancer Database | – | –Use existing data to define surveillance strategy in use for patients in this cohort. We will use 10 randomly selected lung cancer resection patients from each accredited institution with stage I-III NSCLC (potentially curative resection) diagnosed in 2006-2007 and with 5 years of complete follow up or reported as deceased before 2012. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Subjects with lung cancer and data available in the National Cancer Database
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Men or Women
- Diagnosis of surgically resected lung cancer
- American Joint Committee On Cancer (AJCC) stages I-III
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- -
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Time to Death
Time frame: Subjects with data from 2006-2007 and with 5 years of complete follow-up or reported as deceased before 2012
Data elements will include type of surveillance intensity (i.e., 3 month, 6 month or annually) and vital status
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 23 Mar 2018.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Lung Cancer
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Study of INBRX-106 and INBRX-106 in Combination With Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors (Hexavalent OX40 Agonist)
Solid Tumor, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
A Prospective ,Multicenter ,Non-interventional ,Real-world Study Observing Changes in Molecular Markers Osimertinib Targeted Therapy in EGFRm NSCLC
Non Small Cell Lung Cancer
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study Evaluating Sotorasib Platinum Doublet Combination Versus Pembrolizumab Platinum Doublet Combination as a Front-Line Therapy in Participants With Stage IV or Advanced Stage IIIB/C Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers (CodeBreaK 202)
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Datopotamab Deruxtecan (Dato-DXd, DS-1062a) in Advanced and/or Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Metastatic Lung Cancer, Advanced Non Small Cell Lung 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.
Benjamin Kozower, MD principal investigator
University of Virginia
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Lung Cancer, run by University of Virginia.
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 3 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 23 Mar 2018. 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.
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?
Time to Death (time frame: Subjects with data from 2006-2007 and with 5 years of complete follow-up or reported as deceased before 2012). 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 23 Mar 2018.