An interventional study of Cavity boost radiation in Cerebral Metastases and Surgery, sponsored by Heinrich-Heine University, Duesseldorf. Status unknown at 1 site in Germany. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-03-22.
Sponsored by Heinrich-Heine University, Duesseldorf · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The purpose of this study is to determine whether a local fractionated radiation therapy achieves a better local tumor control after complete surgical metastases resection at 6 month as compared to observation alone. Further it should be evaluated if cognitive functioning and quality of life is similar in both groups.
The surgical resection of cerebral metastases as a key element in a multimodal therapeutic concept of brain metastatic patients is included in the common recommendations and international guidelines (level I evidence). These recommendations are based on a series of prospective, randomized and controlled studies which addressed the impact of the surgical metastases resection combined with a whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in comparison to WBRT alone. Achieving local tumor control is the major goal of surgery and local tumor control rate after surgery alone has been addressed in few studies: A prospective, randomized American multicenter study revealed a local recurrence rate of 46% by median follow-up of 43 weeks for patients who underwent surgery alone without an adjuvant radiation therapy. Similarly, the 2-year local recurrence rate after metastases resection alone was 53.1% in a retrospective Korean study and 59% in the prospective, randomized and controlled EORTC 22952-26001 study.
In conclusion, standard surgery alone is not sufficient to achieve local control in about 50% of patients (evidence level I). Therefore, surgery of cerebral metastases is often followed by an adjuvant radiation therapy, which is an important part of a multi-modal therapy. Evidence for an additional adjuvant whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) after surgical resection was gained from a first prospective, randomized study in 1998: Patients treated by surgery followed by adjuvant WBRT had a significant lower local in-brain progression rate as compared to patients randomized to surgery alone (46% with a median follow-up of 48 weeks in the observation group vs. 10% with a median follow-up of 43 weeks). This result was recently confirmed by the EORTC 22952-26001 study: The 2-year local in-brain progression rate after surgical resection was reduced by a WBRT from 59% to 27%. But despite the lower local and also lower distant in-brain progression rate, the WBRT had no significant influence on the overall survival. The additional analysis of the quality of life data of the EORTC 22952-26001 study showed, that a WBRT negatively impacts the health-related quality of life with a statistically relevant and clinically significant impairment of the physical functioning (at 8 weeks), cognitive functioning and of the global health status. In conclusion, WBRT after surgery of cerebral metastases significantly reduces the incidence of local recurrences but has no impact on the overall survival and has a significant negative impact on the patient´s quality of life and cognitive function. Therefore, WBRT is not mandatory as adjuvant concept after surgical metastases resection and does not have an additional oncological impact in comparison to observation.
A local fractionated radiation therapy in analogy to the WBRT might achieve a similar local tumor control than observation alone but might be associated with an improved cognitive functioning as compared to WBRT. The purpose of this study is to determine whether a local fractionated radiation therapy achieves a better local tumor control after complete surgical metastases resection at 6 month as compared to observation alone. Further it should be evaluated if cognitive functioning and quality of life is similar in both groups.
Heinrich-Heine University, Duesseldorf is the lead sponsor of 180 studies on the registry; 54 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
patients in the observation arm receive no adjuvant local radiation therapy after complete surgical resection of a cerebral metastasis
patients in the intervention arm receive an adjuvant local radiation therapy (cavity boost radiation therapy: 10 x 3 Gy ad 30 Gy; clinical target volume (CTV): resection cavity plus surrounding 5 mm; planning target volume (PTV): CTV + 1mm)
Radiation: Cavity boost radiation
Cavity boost radiation therapy with 10 x 3 Gy for patients suffering from complete resected cerebral metastases
Local tumor control of resected metastases at 6 month
Primary outcome measure is the local tumor control of resected metastases after local cavity boost radiation therapy or observation at 6 month
Time frame: 6 month
Local tumor control of resected metastases at 12 and 18 month
Secondary outcome measure is the local tumor control of resected metastases after local cavity boost radiation therapy or observation at 12 and 18 month
Time frame: 12, 18 month
Distant tumor control of resected metastases at 6, 12 and 18 month
Secondary outcome measure is the distant tumor control at 6, 12 and 18 month
Time frame: 6, 12 and 18 month
Incidence of leptomeningeal carcinosis
Secondary outcome measure is the incidence of a leptomeningeal carcinosis at 6, 12 and 18 month
Time frame: 6, 12 and 18 month
Eortc qlq bn20 questionaire
Secondary outcome measure is the patients quality of life at 3, 6, 9 12, 15, 18 month as assessed by the Eortc qlq bn20 questionaire
Time frame: 3, 6, 9 12, 15, 18 month
Eortc qlq c30 questionaire
Secondary outcome measure is the patients quality of life at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 month as assessed by the Eortc qlq c30 questionaire
Time frame: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 month
Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)
Secondary outcome measure is the patients neurocognitive functioning at 3, 6, 9 12, 15 and 18 month as assessed by the MMSE
Time frame: 3, 6, 9 12, 15, 18 month
Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT)
Secondary outcome measure is the patients neurocognitive functioning at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 month as assessed by the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT),
Time frame: 3, 6, 9 12, 15, 18 month
Controlled Oral Word Association (COWA)
Secondary outcome measure is the patients neurocognitive functioning at 3, 6, 9 12, 15 and 18 month as assessed by the Controlled Oral Word Association (COWA)
Time frame: 3, 6, 9 12, 15, 18 month
Test and Trail-Making Test (TMT) A & B
Secondary outcome measure is the patients neurocognitive functioning at 3, 6, 9 12, 15 and 18 month as assessed by the Test and Trail-Making Test (TMT) A \& B
Time frame: 3, 6, 9 12, 15, 18 month
Plan to share: Undecided
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is status unknown, as verified in Mar 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
Heinrich-Heine University, Duesseldorf →