Gastric CancerIPATNCT04286984
Implementation of a Patient Blood Management Program in Gastric Cancer Surgery
An observational study of Gastric Cancer and Anemia, Iron Deficiency, run by Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge.
Trial summary
Retrospective evaluation on a prospective cohort of patients undergoing curative gastric cancer resection to evaluate the impact of a patient blood management (PBM) program on transfusion rate and clinical outcomes. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Gastric Cancer, Anemia, Iron Deficiency, Surgery--Complications
- What is being tested?
- unified protocol of Patient Blood Management measure
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- How many people
- 1,063 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2014to 31 Dec 2018
- How long will I take part?
- 90 Days
- 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: Multicenter study on a prospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing elective gastric cancer resection with curative intent between January 2014 and December 2018 in hospitals of the Spanish EURECCA project which implemented the upPBM before December 31th, 2017, to ensure a minimum 1-year follow-up of upPBM.
Who may be able to join
- Patients undergoing elective gastric cancer resection with curative intent between January 2014 and December 2018 in hospitals of the Spanish EURECCA project which implemented the upPBM before December 31th, 2017.
Who cannot join
- Metastasis
- Palliative Surgery
- Hospitals non implementing the upPBM before December 31th, 2017
About this study
Official title: Study of the Efficacy of a Patient Blood Management Program Implemented in Patients Undergoing Curative Gastric Cancer Resection
Retrospective evaluation on a prospective cohort of patients undergoing curative gastric cancer resection to evaluate the impact of a patient blood management (PBM) program on transfusion rate and clinical outcomes. The study aims to compare transfusion practices and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing elective gastric cancer resection before and after implementing a PBM program, which included strategies to detect and treat preoperative anemia and restrictive transfusion practice (2014-2018). Primary outcome is transfusion rate (TR). Secondary outcomes are transfusion index (TI), postoperative complications, length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and 90-day mortality. Adherence to protocol is also analyzed. Differences of variables before and after PBM program implementation are evaluated with mean comparing analysis adjusted by confounding factors.
Read the detailed description
The Spanish EURopEan CanCer Audit (EURECCA) Esophagogastric Cancer Group is a surgical quality improvement project, linked to the EURECCA network in Europe. EURECCA's population-based registry prospectively collects clinical data from all public hospitals in the participating regions providing them with their outcomes benchmarked against other hospitals. Ninety variables with detailed definitions are prospectively collected from each patient by the reference surgeon at each institution. Validation of completeness and accuracy of data registration (period 2014-2017) has recently been performed revealing a completeness rate of 97% and an accuracy rate of 95% (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541629, pending publication).
During a workshop of the Spanish EURECCA Esophagogastric Cancer Group in May 2014, a wide heterogeneity in perioperative transfusion policies among hospitals was detected. After several meetings, a unified protocol of PBM measures (upPBM) was agreed in February 2016. Briefly, the upPBM included strategies to address two PBM pillars: anemia detection and treatment according to the algorithm described in Figure 1; and a restrictive transfusion practice according to national guidelines for transfusion triggers. After performing a laboratory work-up 2 to 4 weeks before surgery, preoperative iron supplementation in case of iron deficiency anemia at least 7 days before surgery was recommended. Preoperative anemia was defined by a Hb level < 13 g/dL for both sexes. In anemic patients, iron status study was recommended and iron supplementation with intravenous iron was indicated if Hb<12g/dL and/or ferritin <300 mg/l. Intravenous iron (ferric sucrose or carboxymaltose) was administrated with the goal of recovering iron deficit, calculated using the Ganzoni formula or by the simplified strategy, only available for ferric carboxymaltose. Recommended transfusion triggers were: Hb < 9 g/dL for patients with risk factors and/or anemia symptoms; and Hb < 7 g/dL for the rest of patients in absence of active bleeding.
After consensus, the upPBM was introduced through specific workshops to the members of the local multidisciplinary team from all participating hospitals by the two principal investigators of this study, and approval was obtained from each Institutional Review Board. Start of application of upPBM was prospectively communicated to the principal investigator of the study by the reference surgeon in each center.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation and efficacy of a PBM protocol on perioperative RBCT and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing gastric cancer resection with curative intent.
This is a multicenter retrospective study on a prospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing elective gastric cancer resection with curative intent between January 2014 and December 2018 in hospitals of the Spanish EURECCA project which implemented the upPBM before December 31th, 2017, to ensure a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients are divided in 2 groups: those with a diagnosis of gastric cancer before the upPBM implementation in their attending center and those with a diagnosis afterwards.
Recorded data for each patient are age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA class), Body Mass Index (BMI), percentage of unintended weight loss 6 months before surgery, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (categorized as 0, 1-2, and > 3), tumor location, tumoral pathological stage (8th edition, Union for International Cancer Control, UICC), neoadjuvant treatment, type of gastrectomy (distal subtotal or total), extension of lymphadenectomy according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association Classification (D), surgical approach (open or minimally invasive), associated multivisceral resection, Hb at diagnosis and before surgery, preoperative intravenous iron treatment, number of transfused units, moment of transfusion (pre- or perioperative), postoperative complications, hospital readmission and mortality. Transfusion Rate (TR) is defined as the percentage of patients receiving any RBCT over the total of patients. Transfusion Index (TI) is defined as the total number of RBC units transfused divided by the number of transfused patients. Both TR and TI are defined as preoperative (from the date of diagnosis of gastric cancer to the date of surgery), perioperative (from the date of surgery to the date of hospital discharge) or global (from the date of diagnosis to the date of hospital discharge). Postoperative complications were recorded the 30 first days after surgery, defined according to the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) and graded with the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification. Readmissions are considered during the 30 first days after hospital discharge and mortality is recorded during the 90 first days after surgery. Failure-to-rescue was calculated as the proportion of patients with a severe complication (Clavien-Dindo score >IIIa) dying during the first 90 days after surgery.
Primary endpoints are global, preoperative and perioperative TR. Secondary endpoints were TI, Hb improvement after preoperative treatment with intravenous iron, overall, severe and infectious postoperative complications rates, length of stay, and mortality. Protocol compliance is evaluated with the following measures: determination of Hb > 14 days before surgery; determination of ferritin in patients with Hb < 13 g/dL; percentage of patients with Hb <12 g/dL and/or ferritin < 300 mg/l at diagnosis treated preoperatively with intravenous iron > 7 days before surgery; and percentage of patients transfused following upPBM threshold recommendations.
Data variables are described using counts and percentages, means and standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR) as needed. For basal patient, tumor and surgery characteristics, comparation before and after upPBM is done with a Chi2 study for discontinuous and t Student study for continuous variables, considering significant difference when p<0.05. For study outcomes, raw and adjusted differences before and after upPBM implementation are reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI95%).Variables used in the adjustment are possible confounding factors that, based on the investigator's previous experience and published data, could vary during the study period and have a potential impact on perioperative transfusion, postoperative morbidity and length of stay: age, CCI score, neoadjuvant treatment, type of gastrectomy (subtotal or total), minimally invasive surgery, lymphadenectomy extension (D), and visceral associated resection. To assess global, preoperative and intra + postoperative TR difference before and after upPBM implementation a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model is used. To assess postoperative complications, reoperation, hospital readmission (30 days) and postoperative mortality (90 days) difference before and after upPBM implementation a logistic regression model is used. Estimates are bounded by 95% confidence intervals. Statistical significance was held at 5%. All analyses are performed using R version 3.6.1.
- Conditions
- Gastric Cancer, Anemia, Iron Deficiency, Surgery--Complications, Transfusion Related Complication
- Being tested
- unified protocol of Patient Blood Management measure
- Keywords
- Gastric Cancer, Anemia, Intravenous Iron, Patient Blood Management, Surgery
- Medical subject headings
- Stomach Neoplasms, Anemia, Iron-Deficiency, Anemia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
unified protocol of Patient Blood Management measureOther
Also called upPBM
upPBM description: After performing a laboratory work-up 2 to 4 weeks before surgery, preoperative iron supplementation in case of iron deficiency anemia at least 7 days before surgery was recommended. Preoperative anemia was defined by a Hb level < 13 g/dL for both sexes. In anemic patients, iron status study was recommended and iron supplementation with intravenous iron was indicated if Hb<12g/dL and/or ferritin <300 mg/l. Intravenous iron (ferric sucrose or carboxymaltose) was administrated with the goal of recovering iron deficit, calculated using the Ganzoni formula or by the simplified strategy, only available for ferric carboxymaltose. Recommended transfusion triggers were: Hb < 9 g/dL for patients with risk factors and/or anemia symptoms; and Hb < 7 g/dL for the rest of patients in absence of active bleeding.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-upPBM | Patients with a diagnosis of gastric cancer before the upPBM implementation in their attending center | |
| Post-upPBM | Patients with a diagnosis of gastric cancer after the upPBM implementation in their attending center Receives: Other: unified protocol of Patient Blood Management measure |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Transfusion Rate
Percentage of patients receiving any red blood cell trasfusion over the total of patients
Measured: 2014-2018
Secondary outcomes (6)
Transfusion Index
Total number of red blood cell units transfused divided by the number of transfused patients
Measured: 2014-2018
Rate of postoperative complications
Postoperative complications recorded the 30 first days after surgery, defined according to the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) and graded with the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification
Measured: 2014-2018
Readmission rate
Hospital readmissions during the 30 first days after hospital discharge
Measured: 2014-2018
Length of stay
Postoperative stay from surgery to hospital discharge
Measured: 2014-2018
Mortality rate
Mortality recorded during the 90 first days after surgery
Measured: 2014-2018
Percentage of failure-to-rescue
Proportion of patients with a severe complication (Clavien-Dindo score >IIIa) dying during the first 90 days after surgery
Measured: 2014-2018
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Feb 2020
- Study start1 Jan 2014
- Primary completion31 Dec 2018
- Study completion31 Dec 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (5)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Gastric 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 1,063 participants (actual)
- Target duration
- 90 Days
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Javier Osorio, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
- Investigators
- Javier Osorio, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04286984
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IPAT
- Acronym
- IPAT
- Status last verified
- Feb 2020
- First submitted
- 25 Feb 2020
- Last updated
- 2 Mar 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Report of global data description to all responsible surgeons of participant hospitals
Publications
Jerico C, Osorio J, Garcia-Erce JA, Pera M. Patient Blood Management strategies for iron deficiency anemia management in gastric cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Apr;31(4):547-548. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001383. No abstract available.
PubMed 30829765Messager M, de Steur W, Boelens PG, Jensen LS, Mariette C, Reynolds JV, Osorio J, Pera M, Johansson J, Kolodziejczyk P, Roviello F, De Manzoni G, Monig SP, Allum WH; EURECCA Upper GI group (European Registration of Cancer Care). Description and analysis of clinical pathways for oesophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, in 10 European countries (the EURECCA upper gastro intestinal group - European Registration of Cancer Care). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep;42(9):1432-47. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.01.001. Epub 2016 Feb 6.
PubMed 26898839Messager M, de Steur WO, van Sandick JW, Reynolds J, Pera M, Mariette C, Hardwick RH, Bastiaannet E, Boelens PG, van deVelde CJ, Allum WH; EURECCA Upper GI Group. Variations among 5 European countries for curative treatment of resectable oesophageal and gastric cancer: A survey from the EURECCA Upper GI Group (EUropean REgistration of Cancer CAre). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Jan;42(1):116-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.09.017. Epub 2015 Sep 30.
PubMed 26461256Allum W, Osorio J. EURECCA oesophago-gastric cancer project. Cir Esp. 2016 May;94(5):255-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2015.12.005. Epub 2016 Mar 2. No abstract available. English, Spanish.
PubMed 26944535Osorio J, Jerico C, Miranda C, Garsot E, Luna A, Miro M, Santamaria M, Artigau E, Rodriguez-Santiago J, Castro S, Feliu J, Aldeano A, Olona C, Momblan D, Ruiz D, Galofre G, Pros I, Garcia-Albeniz X, Lozano M, Pera M. Perioperative transfusion management in gastric cancer surgery: Analysis of the Spanish subset of the EURECCA oesophago-gastric cancer registry. Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;96(9):546-554. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2018.03.010. English, Spanish.
PubMed 29773261
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Mar 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Study of the Efficacy of a Patient Blood Management Program Implemented in Patients Undergoing Curative Gastric Cancer Resection
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04286984
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IPAT / IPAT
- Conditions
- Gastric Cancer, Anemia, Iron Deficiency, Surgery--Complications, Transfusion Related Complication
- Keywords
- Gastric Cancer, Anemia, Intravenous Iron, Patient Blood Management, Surgery
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1,063 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Universitari de BellvitgeUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Feb 2020 (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.
Retrospective evaluation on a prospective cohort of patients undergoing curative gastric cancer resection to evaluate the impact of a patient blood management (PBM) program on transfusion rate and clinical outcomes. The study aims to compare transfusion practices and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing elective gastric cancer resection before and after implementing a PBM program, which included strategies to detect and treat preoperative anemia and restrictive transfusion practice (2014-2018). Primary outcome is transfusion rate (TR). Secondary outcomes are transfusion index (TI), postoperative complications, length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and 90-day mortality. Adherence to protocol is also analyzed. Differences of variables before and after PBM program implementation are evaluated with mean comparing analysis adjusted by confounding factors.
Detailed description
The Spanish EURopEan CanCer Audit (EURECCA) Esophagogastric Cancer Group is a surgical quality improvement project, linked to the EURECCA network in Europe. EURECCA's population-based registry prospectively collects clinical data from all public hospitals in the participating regions providing them with their outcomes benchmarked against other hospitals. Ninety variables with detailed definitions are prospectively collected from each patient by the reference surgeon at each institution. Validation of completeness and accuracy of data registration (period 2014-2017) has recently been performed revealing a completeness rate of 97% and an accuracy rate of 95% (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541629, pending publication).
During a workshop of the Spanish EURECCA Esophagogastric Cancer Group in May 2014, a wide heterogeneity in perioperative transfusion policies among hospitals was detected. After several meetings, a unified protocol of PBM measures (upPBM) was agreed in February 2016. Briefly, the upPBM included strategies to address two PBM pillars: anemia detection and treatment according to the algorithm described in Figure 1; and a restrictive transfusion practice according to national guidelines for transfusion triggers. After performing a laboratory work-up 2 to 4 weeks before surgery, preoperative iron supplementation in case of iron deficiency anemia at least 7 days before surgery was recommended. Preoperative anemia was defined by a Hb level < 13 g/dL for both sexes. In anemic patients, iron status study was recommended and iron supplementation with intravenous iron was indicated if Hb<12g/dL and/or ferritin <300 mg/l. Intravenous iron (ferric sucrose or carboxymaltose) was administrated with the goal of recovering iron deficit, calculated using the Ganzoni formula or by the simplified strategy, only available for ferric carboxymaltose. Recommended transfusion triggers were: Hb < 9 g/dL for patients with risk factors and/or anemia symptoms; and Hb < 7 g/dL for the rest of patients in absence of active bleeding.
After consensus, the upPBM was introduced through specific workshops to the members of the local multidisciplinary team from all participating hospitals by the two principal investigators of this study, and approval was obtained from each Institutional Review Board. Start of application of upPBM was prospectively communicated to the principal investigator of the study by the reference surgeon in each center.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation and efficacy of a PBM protocol on perioperative RBCT and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing gastric cancer resection with curative intent.
This is a multicenter retrospective study on a prospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing elective gastric cancer resection with curative intent between January 2014 and December 2018 in hospitals of the Spanish EURECCA project which implemented the upPBM before December 31th, 2017, to ensure a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients are divided in 2 groups: those with a diagnosis of gastric cancer before the upPBM implementation in their attending center and those with a diagnosis afterwards.
Recorded data for each patient are age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA class), Body Mass Index (BMI), percentage of unintended weight loss 6 months before surgery, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (categorized as 0, 1-2, and > 3), tumor location, tumoral pathological stage (8th edition, Union for International Cancer Control, UICC), neoadjuvant treatment, type of gastrectomy (distal subtotal or total), extension of lymphadenectomy according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association Classification (D), surgical approach (open or minimally invasive), associated multivisceral resection, Hb at diagnosis and before surgery, preoperative intravenous iron treatment, number of transfused units, moment of transfusion (pre- or perioperative), postoperative complications, hospital readmission and mortality. Transfusion Rate (TR) is defined as the percentage of patients receiving any RBCT over the total of patients. Transfusion Index (TI) is defined as the total number of RBC units transfused divided by the number of transfused patients. Both TR and TI are defined as preoperative (from the date of diagnosis of gastric cancer to the date of surgery), perioperative (from the date of surgery to the date of hospital discharge) or global (from the date of diagnosis to the date of hospital discharge). Postoperative complications were recorded the 30 first days after surgery, defined according to the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) and graded with the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification. Readmissions are considered during the 30 first days after hospital discharge and mortality is recorded during the 90 first days after surgery. Failure-to-rescue was calculated as the proportion of patients with a severe complication (Clavien-Dindo score >IIIa) dying during the first 90 days after surgery.
Primary endpoints are global, preoperative and perioperative TR. Secondary endpoints were TI, Hb improvement after preoperative treatment with intravenous iron, overall, severe and infectious postoperative complications rates, length of stay, and mortality. Protocol compliance is evaluated with the following measures: determination of Hb > 14 days before surgery; determination of ferritin in patients with Hb < 13 g/dL; percentage of patients with Hb <12 g/dL and/or ferritin < 300 mg/l at diagnosis treated preoperatively with intravenous iron > 7 days before surgery; and percentage of patients transfused following upPBM threshold recommendations.
Data variables are described using counts and percentages, means and standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR) as needed. For basal patient, tumor and surgery characteristics, comparation before and after upPBM is done with a Chi2 study for discontinuous and t Student study for continuous variables, considering significant difference when p<0.05. For study outcomes, raw and adjusted differences before and after upPBM implementation are reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI95%).Variables used in the adjustment are possible confounding factors that, based on the investigator's previous experience and published data, could vary during the study period and have a potential impact on perioperative transfusion, postoperative morbidity and length of stay: age, CCI score, neoadjuvant treatment, type of gastrectomy (subtotal or total), minimally invasive surgery, lymphadenectomy extension (D), and visceral associated resection. To assess global, preoperative and intra + postoperative TR difference before and after upPBM implementation a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model is used. To assess postoperative complications, reoperation, hospital readmission (30 days) and postoperative mortality (90 days) difference before and after upPBM implementation a logistic regression model is used. Estimates are bounded by 95% confidence intervals. Statistical significance was held at 5%. All analyses are performed using R version 3.6.1.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 90 Days
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-upPBM | – | –Patients with a diagnosis of gastric cancer before the upPBM implementation in their attending center |
| Post-upPBM | – | Other: unified protocol of Patient Blood Management measurePatients with a diagnosis of gastric cancer after the upPBM implementation in their attending center |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Multicenter study on a prospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing elective gastric cancer resection with curative intent between January 2014 and December 2018 in hospitals of the Spanish EURECCA project which implemented the upPBM before December 31th, 2017, to ensure a minimum 1-year follow-up of upPBM.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients undergoing elective gastric cancer resection with curative intent between January 2014 and December 2018 in hospitals of the Spanish EURECCA project which implemented the upPBM before December 31th, 2017.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Metastasis
- Palliative Surgery
- Hospitals non implementing the upPBM before December 31th, 2017
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 |
|---|---|---|
| unified protocol of Patient Blood Management measureAlso: upPBMupPBM description: After performing a laboratory work-up 2 to 4 weeks before surgery, preoperative iron supplementation in case of iron deficiency anemia at least 7 days before surgery was recommended. Preoperative anemia was defined by a Hb level < 13 g/dL for both sexes. In anemic patients, iron status study was recommended and iron supplementation with intravenous iron was indicated if Hb<12g/dL and/or ferritin <300 mg/l. Intravenous iron (ferric sucrose or carboxymaltose) was administrated with the goal of recovering iron deficit, calculated using the Ganzoni formula or by the simplified strategy, only available for ferric carboxymaltose. Recommended transfusion triggers were: Hb < 9 g/dL for patients with risk factors and/or anemia symptoms; and Hb < 7 g/dL for the rest of patients in absence of active bleeding. | Other | Post-upPBM |
Primary outcome
Transfusion Rate
Time frame: 2014-2018
Percentage of patients receiving any red blood cell trasfusion over the total of patients
6 secondary outcomes
Transfusion Index
Time frame: 2014-2018
Rate of postoperative complications
Time frame: 2014-2018
Readmission rate
Time frame: 2014-2018
Length of stay
Time frame: 2014-2018
Mortality rate
Time frame: 2014-2018
Percentage of failure-to-rescue
Time frame: 2014-2018
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 2 Mar 2020.
- Background: PubMed 30829765Jerico C, Osorio J, Garcia-Erce JA, Pera M. Patient Blood Management strategies for iron deficiency anemia management in gastric cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Apr;31(4):547-548. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001383. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 26898839Messager M, de Steur W, Boelens PG, Jensen LS, Mariette C, Reynolds JV, Osorio J, Pera M, Johansson J, Kolodziejczyk P, Roviello F, De Manzoni G, Monig SP, Allum WH; EURECCA Upper GI group (European Registration of Cancer Care). Description and analysis of clinical pathways for oesophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, in 10 European countries (the EURECCA upper gastro intestinal group - European Registration of Cancer Care). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep;42(9):1432-47. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.01.001. Epub 2016 Feb 6.
- Background: PubMed 26461256Messager M, de Steur WO, van Sandick JW, Reynolds J, Pera M, Mariette C, Hardwick RH, Bastiaannet E, Boelens PG, van deVelde CJ, Allum WH; EURECCA Upper GI Group. Variations among 5 European countries for curative treatment of resectable oesophageal and gastric cancer: A survey from the EURECCA Upper GI Group (EUropean REgistration of Cancer CAre). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Jan;42(1):116-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.09.017. Epub 2015 Sep 30.
- Background: PubMed 26944535Allum W, Osorio J. EURECCA oesophago-gastric cancer project. Cir Esp. 2016 May;94(5):255-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2015.12.005. Epub 2016 Mar 2. No abstract available. English, Spanish.
- Results publication: PubMed 29773261Osorio J, Jerico C, Miranda C, Garsot E, Luna A, Miro M, Santamaria M, Artigau E, Rodriguez-Santiago J, Castro S, Feliu J, Aldeano A, Olona C, Momblan D, Ruiz D, Galofre G, Pros I, Garcia-Albeniz X, Lozano M, Pera M. Perioperative transfusion management in gastric cancer surgery: Analysis of the Spanish subset of the EURECCA oesophago-gastric cancer registry. Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;96(9):546-554. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2018.03.010. English, Spanish.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Report of global data description to all responsible surgeons of participant hospitals
Related trials for Gastric 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
RecruitingPhase 2/3
Multicenter Validation Trial of [18F]AlF-FAPI-74 for PET Imaging of Cancer-associated Fibroblasts Through Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitors (FAPI) in Different Tumor Types
Oesophageal Cancer, Gastric Cancer
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
GK01 Cell Therapy in Gastric Cancer With Peritoneal Metastasis
Gastric Cancer (GC)
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study of Neoadjuvant-adjuvant Durvalumab and FLOT Chemotherapy Followed by Adjuvant Durvalumab in Chinese Patients With Resectable GC/GEJC.
Gastric, Esophagogastric Junction
Active, not recruitingEarly Phase 1
Iomab-ACT: A Pilot Study of 131-I Apamistamab Followed by CD19-Targeted CAR T-Cell Therapy for Patients With Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia or Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
B-ALL, DLBCL
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.
Javier Osorio, MD, PhD principal investigator
Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Gastric Cancer and Anemia, Iron Deficiency, run by Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge.
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 3 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 2 Mar 2020. 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?
Transfusion Rate (time frame: 2014-2018). 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 NCT04286984, which also lists 5 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 2 Mar 2020.