CClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT02804893ROMANUpdated Dec 20, 2018

Videothoracoscopic (VATS) vs. Robotic Approach for Lobectomy or Anatomical Segmentectomy

An interventional study of VATS and RATS in Lung Cancer, sponsored by Istituto Clinico Humanitas. Status unknown at 1 site in Italy. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-12-20.

Sponsored by Istituto Clinico Humanitas · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Dec 2018), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
300
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study on 300 patients (150 VATS lobectomies and 150 robotic lobectomies) affected by early stage (I-II) lung cancer. The expected recruitment is one year and two year follow up. Surgeons should have a minimum of 30 major lung resections performed using one of the two techniques for participation in the study. Each participating centers should have the possibility to offer both techniques (Robotics and Vats). The primary end point is a combination of conversion and complication rate. The presence of at least one of the two events is considered a failure. Considering the rate of failure of 35% in the VATS arm, we want to see a failure rate not over 20% in the robot arm, so with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 5%, we need a total of 300 patients.

02

Conditions studied

  • Lung Cancer

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Lung cancer, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery
03

In context

Lung Neoplasms

7,243 studies on the registry are indexed under Lung Neoplasms; 1,558 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 300 is above the median of 60 across 5,296 interventional studies indexed under Lung Neoplasms.

Browse Lung Neoplasms studies →

Lead sponsor

Istituto Clinico Humanitas is the lead sponsor of 275 studies on the registry; 71 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Age older than 18 years old
  • Known or suspected lung cancers
  • Patients in clinical stage T1-T2, N0-N1 candidate to surgery lobectomy or anatomical segmentectomy
  • ASA-1-2-3

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Clinical stage >II
  • Severe heart disease
  • Alcohol abuse
  • Renal impairment (creatinine >2.5)
  • Presence of serious comorbidities
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
300 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    VATS GROUP

    VATS lobectomy or segmentectomy

    Procedure: VATS

  • Active comparator
    RATS GROUP

    Robotic lobectomy or segmentectomy

    Procedure: RATS

Interventions

  • ProcedureVATS

    Thorax thoracoscopic surgery (lobectomy)

    Also known as: Minimally invasive video-assisted surgery

  • ProcedureRATS

    Thorax robotic surgery (lobectomy)

    Also known as: Minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Intraoperative complications: conversion rate, defined as procedures that start with minimally invasive access and are converted to open surgery due to different reasons (bleeding, anatomical reasons, oncological reasons, technical reasons, other)

    Time frame: date of Surgery

  2. Postoperative complications: surgical complications, higher or equal grade II assessed by Clavien-Dindo scale, within 90 days

    Time frame: within 90 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. Duration of surgery

    Time frame: date of Surgery

  2. Number of resected lymph nodes and upstaging

    Time frame: date of Surgery

  3. Proportion of patients who undergo complete resection during the procedure

    Time frame: date of Surgery

  4. Postoperative hospital stay

    Time frame: 2 weeks

  5. Postoperative pain: daily evaluation with visual numeric scale before and after surgery until discharge

    Time frame: 2 weeks, 6 months and 12 months

  6. Quality of life by EORTC QOL-C30

    Time frame: 2 weeks, 6 months and 12 months

  7. Duration of analgesic use after discharge and time to return to normal daily activity

    Time frame: within 90 days

  8. Postoperative respiratory function: FEV 1, PEF and CV

    Time frame: 6 month postoperatively

  9. Rate of local and distant recurrence and disease free survival

    Time frame: 24 months

  10. Patient's immune response: analysis of PCR, serum interleukins, lymphocytes subpopulations

    Time frame: before surgery, 2 hours after surgery and at 3rd and 14th postoperative day

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Thoracic surgery Division, Istituto Clinico Humanitas
    Rozzano, Milan 20089, Italy
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Demmy TL, Curtis JJ. Minimally invasive lobectomy directed toward frail and high-risk patients: a case-control study. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999 Jul;68(1):194-200. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00467-1. PubMed 10421140 ↗
  • Hoksch B, Ablassmaier B, Walter M, Muller JM. [Complication rate after thoracoscopic and conventional lobectomy]. Zentralbl Chir. 2003 Feb;128(2):106-10. doi: 10.1055/s-2003-37763. German. PubMed 12632277 ↗
  • Nakata M, Saeki H, Yokoyama N, Kurita A, Takiyama W, Takashima S. Pulmonary function after lobectomy: video-assisted thoracic surgery versus thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000 Sep;70(3):938-41. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(00)01513-7. PubMed 11016337 ↗
  • Nomori H, Ohtsuka T, Horio H, Naruke T, Suemasu K. Difference in the impairment of vital capacity and 6-minute walking after a lobectomy performed by thoracoscopic surgery, an anterior limited thoracotomy, an anteroaxillary thoracotomy, and a posterolateral thoracotomy. Surg Today. 2003;33(1):7-12. doi: 10.1007/s005950300001. PubMed 12560900 ↗
  • Yim AP, Wan S, Lee TW, Arifi AA. VATS lobectomy reduces cytokine responses compared with conventional surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000 Jul;70(1):243-7. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(00)01258-3. PubMed 10921716 ↗
  • Li WW, Lee RL, Lee TW, Ng CS, Sihoe AD, Wan IY, Arifi AA, Yim AP. The impact of thoracic surgical access on early shoulder function: video-assisted thoracic surgery versus posterolateral thoracotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003 Mar;23(3):390-6. doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(02)00795-9. PubMed 12614812 ↗
  • McKenna RJ Jr, Wolf RK, Brenner M, Fischel RJ, Wurnig P. Is lobectomy by video-assisted thoracic surgery an adequate cancer operation? Ann Thorac Surg. 1998 Dec;66(6):1903-8. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(98)01166-7. PubMed 9930466 ↗
  • Leschber G, Holinka G, Linder A. Video-assisted mediastinoscopic lymphadenectomy (VAMLA)--a method for systematic mediastinal lymphnode dissection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003 Aug;24(2):192-5. doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(03)00253-7. PubMed 12895606 ↗
  • Yim AP, Landreneau RJ, Izzat MB, Fung AL, Wan S. Is video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy a unified approach? Ann Thorac Surg. 1998 Oct;66(4):1155-8. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(98)00622-5. PubMed 9800798 ↗
  • Cao C, Tian DH, Wolak K, Oparka J, He J, Dunning J, Walker WS, Yan TD. Cross-sectional survey on lobectomy approach (X-SOLA). Chest. 2014 Aug;146(2):292-298. doi: 10.1378/chest.13-1075. PubMed 24504007 ↗
  • Daniels LJ, Balderson SS, Onaitis MW, D'Amico TA. Thoracoscopic lobectomy: a safe and effective strategy for patients with stage I lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002 Sep;74(3):860-4. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(02)03764-5. PubMed 12238851 ↗
  • Melfi FM, Menconi GF, Mariani AM, Angeletti CA. Early experience with robotic technology for thoracoscopic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002 May;21(5):864-8. doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(02)00102-1. PubMed 12062276 ↗
  • Park BJ, Flores RM, Rusch VW. Robotic assistance for video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy: technique and initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006 Jan;131(1):54-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.07.031. PubMed 16399294 ↗
  • Gharagozloo F, Margolis M, Tempesta B, Strother E, Najam F. Robot-assisted lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer: report of 100 consecutive cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009 Aug;88(2):380-4. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.04.039. PubMed 19632377 ↗
  • Veronesi G, Galetta D, Maisonneuve P, Melfi F, Schmid RA, Borri A, Vannucci F, Spaggiari L. Four-arm robotic lobectomy for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 Jul;140(1):19-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.10.025. Epub 2009 Dec 28. PubMed 20038475 ↗
  • Louie BE, Farivar AS, Aye RW, Vallieres E. Early experience with robotic lung resection results in similar operative outcomes and morbidity when compared with matched video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012 May;93(5):1598-604; discussion 1604-5. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.01.067. Epub 2012 Mar 20. PubMed 22440364 ↗
  • Nakamura H. Systematic review of published studies on safety and efficacy of thoracoscopic and robot-assisted lobectomy for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;20(2):93-8. doi: 10.5761/atcs.ra.13-00314. Epub 2014 Feb 28. PubMed 24583699 ↗
  • Veronesi G, Abbas AE, Muriana P, Lembo R, Bottoni E, Perroni G, Testori A, Dieci E, Bakhos CT, Car S, Luzzi L, Alloisio M, Novellis P. Perioperative Outcome of Robotic Approach Versus Manual Videothoracoscopic Major Resection in Patients Affected by Early Lung Cancer: Results of a Randomized Multicentric Study (ROMAN Study). Front Oncol. 2021 Sep 9;11:726408. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.726408. eCollection 2021. PubMed 34568057 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 20, 2018, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02804893
Lead sponsor
Istituto Clinico Humanitas
Collaborators
Fondazione Umberto Veronesi
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 17, 2016
Start date
Mar 6, 2017
Primary completion
Mar 6, 2022 (estimated)
Completion
Mar 6, 2023 (estimated)
Last update
Dec 20, 2018

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Dec 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion