AzTrials
AzTrials

Endobronchial MassEVERMORENCT03903315

Central Malignant Airway Obstructions: Medical Treatment Alone Versus Endoscopic and Medical Treatmen

An observational study of Endobronchial Mass and Lung Cancer, run by University of Modena and Reggio Emilia at 1 site in Italy.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The obstruction of the central airways (CAO) may be caused by a large variety of malignant and non malignant processes, and it may present with a variety of symptoms ranging from mild shortness of breath to life-threatening respiratory failure. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 80 years
Conditions the study is for
Endobronchial Mass, Lung Cancer
What is being tested?
Comparison between patients with Patients with central malignant airway obstructions undergoing medical treatment alone versus medical and endoscopic treatment
How many people
100 participants
Where
1 siteItaly
Study dates
1 Aug 2019to 1 Jan 2022
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
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: Patients with malignant central airways obstruction treated with medical therapy alone or endoscopic treatment and medical therapy

Who may be able to join

  • patients with malignant central airways obstruction admitted to the Bronchoscopy Unit of the University Hospital of Modena (Italy) and to the Bronchoscopy Unit of the Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova of Reggio Emilia (Italy)

Who cannot join

  • metastatic disease
  • small cell lung cancer
  • pregnancy
  • low performance status at the time of diagnosis

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Italy1 site
  • Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico di Modena

    Modena

Other trials in Italy

About this study

Official title: Central Malignant Airway Obstructions: Medical Treatment Alone Versus Endoscopic and Medical Treatment. A Multicentric Retrospective Study

The obstruction of the central airways (CAO) may be caused by a large variety of malignant and non malignant processes, and it may present with a variety of symptoms ranging from mild shortness of breath to life-threatening respiratory failure.

The epidemiologic impact of lung cancer leads to an increasing number of patients developing complications of proximal endobronchial disease. An estimated 20-30% of patients with lung cancer will develop complications associated with airway obstruction, e.g. dyspnea, pneumonia and atelectasis, and up to 40% of lung cancer deaths may be attributed to locoregional disease.

Read more

Although lung cancer patients with CAO are not candidates for surgical resection, more than 80% of these patients can receive palliative treatment using interventional bronchoscopy; in addiction, almost the 85% of these procedures reach luminal clearance and endoscopic success in terms of symptomatic relief, of pulmonary function and quality of life.

There are no definitive data about factors such as type of disease or site of the lesion which may affect the use of a single or a combined endoscopic modality or stenting in the treatment of airway obstructions. A Dalar's retrospective study showed that airway stenting is a useful treatment modality besides the other interventional bronchoscopic procedures: it not only provides rapid relief of symptoms and an improved quality of life, but also gives additional time for adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy that might provide prolonged survival.

Since Dumon introduced the first dedicated endoluminal airway stent, there was a clear immediate relief of respiratory symptoms and significant quality survival in most patients (9). In a Miyazawa's study all patients with malignant central airway obstruction had significant improvements in dyspnea and also in spirometry after stenting, and the author suggested that the correct positioning of the stent at the choke point leads to maximal symptomatic benefit in these patients. The choice of different airway stents can be made based on the nature (intrinsic, extrinsic or combined) and site of the lesion: for example the Dumon stent can be preferred in lesions of trachea and right main bronchus, the Ultraflex stent on the left and stenosis beyond the main bronchi. The underlying disease, the site of lesion and treatment modality are known as independent predictors of survival. Complications related to the placement of stents include re-obstructions of the lumen by tumor, granuloma formation at the stent side, mucous plugging and migration of the stent; with the use of laser, both perforation of airway wall and fire.

Regarding laser resection for malignant airway obstruction, it is associated with improved survival rates (60% of patients alive at 7 months in one study). As these studies were not randomized trials, it is impossible to conclude that the laser therapy was responsible for the improved survival, but it is likely that laser therapy provided a rapid and safe means of relieving central airway obstruction, which is associated with a high mortality rate.

The strategy and modality of treatment for malignant central airway obstructions depends not only on the endoscopic characteristics and location of the lesions, but also on the patient's comorbidities, pulmonary function, previous treatment and life expectancy. The primary purpose of treatment with interventional bronchoscopy alone remains to improve symptom control and quality of life, not to improve the prognosis. However, the advent of molecular-targeted therapy may change the impact of interventional bronchoscopy, especially in lung cancer patients with EGFR mutations: in a Tomoyuki case report there is the first description of the use of endoscopic treatment plus molecular-targeted therapy as combination treatment, with benefits in terms of patient's general conditions and quality of life. Moreover, some researchers have reported cases of malignant lymphoma patients with central airway obstruction who were successfully treated using interventional bronchoscopy followed by systemic chemotherapy.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences between patients with central malignant airway obstruction treated only with medical therapy versus patients submitted to endoscopic plus medical therapy in terms of prognosis, quality of life and access to health services.

Being tested
Comparison between patients with Patients with central malignant airway obstructions undergoing medical treatment alone versus medical and endoscopic treatment
Medical subject headings
Lung Neoplasms

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Comparison between patients with Patients with central malignant airway obstructions undergoing medical treatment alone versus medical and endoscopic treatmentOther

    Comparison between patients with Patients with central malignant airway obstructions undergoing medical treatment alone versus medical and endoscopic treatment with reference to mortality and complications.

Study groups in NCT03903315
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
medical treatment alonePatients with central malignant airway obstructions undergoing medical treatment alone
Receives: Other: Comparison between patients with Patients with central malignant airway obstructions undergoing medical treatment alone versus medical and endoscopic treatment
endoscopic + medical treatmentPatients with central malignant airway obstructions undergoing medical and endoscopic treatment
Receives: Other: Comparison between patients with Patients with central malignant airway obstructions undergoing medical treatment alone versus medical and endoscopic treatment

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. 1 year Survival

    Assessment of survival through medical records and reports consultation

    Measured: Ten years

Secondary outcomes (5)
  1. Infections

    Assessment of the onset of infections through medical records and reports consultation

    Measured: Ten years

  2. Respiratory failure

    Assessment of the onset of respiratory failure through medical records and reports consultation

    Measured: Ten years

  3. Hospital admission

    Assessment of the occurrence of hospital admission through medical records and reports consultation

    Measured: Ten years

  4. Need for palliative care

    Assessment of the need to start palliative support through medical records and reports consultation

    Measured: Ten years

  5. Atelectasis

    Assessment of the occurrence of atelectasis through medical records and reports consultation

    Measured: Ten years

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted4 Apr 2019
  2. Study start1 Aug 2019
  3. Primary completion1 Jan 2020
  4. Study completion1 Jan 2022

Resources

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
100 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03903315
Sponsor's protocol ID
UModenaReggio 7
Acronym
EVERMORE
Status last verified
Mar 2022
First submitted
2 Apr 2019
Last updated
23 Mar 2022
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Endobronchial Mass and Lung Cancer, run by University of Modena and Reggio Emilia at 1 site in Italy.

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 1 inclusion and 4 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 2022. 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 Italy. 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?

1 year Survival (time frame: Ten years). 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 2022.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in