ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT05874492FIBROTHERMEUpdated Apr 13, 2026

Evaluation of the Medical Benefit of Spa Therapy on Fibrosis After Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer or UADT (Upper Aerodigestive Tract) Cancer

An interventional study of Thermal cure with a primary dermatological indication in Fibrosis, Breast Cancer and Head and Neck Cancer, sponsored by Association Francaise pour la Recherche Thermale. Recruiting at 13 sites in 2 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-13.

Primary conditionBreast NeoplasmsRegistry: FibrosisReclassifiedWhy we changed it
Registry
Fibrosis — the first condition term the registry derived for this study.
ClinicalTrials.gg
Breast Neoplasms
Why
  1. Fibrosis is a broad heading, used only when no more specific condition is named.
  2. The study's listed conditions name Breast Neoplasms.
Confidence
High: the new condition is named in the study's own listed conditions. Of 351 hand-checked studies reclassified this way, 68% were exactly right and 84% in the right disease family; the registry's first term was right for 5% (measured 2026-10-21). How we classify →
Wrong?
Tell us the study's main condition →

Sponsored by Association Francaise pour la Recherche Thermale · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Jan 2024; still recruiting 2 years 9 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
110
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

FIBROTHERME is a comparative, controlled, randomized, multicenter and simple blinded (investigator) trial.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the medical benefit in terms of quality of life on the dermatological sequelae of fibrosis 6 months after a dermatologically oriented spa therapy in patients with severe late reactions affecting the skin and/or soft tissues at least 6 months after radiotherapy for breast cancer or UADT (Upper Aerodigestive Tract) cancer.

Read the detailed description

Radiation-induced fibrosis is an equivalent of an "orphan disease", in which oncologists have only recently shown interest, despite its prevalence. No study on the medical service provided by crenotherapy has been published in late radiation-induced fibrosis, which shares a common pathophysiology and medico-psycho-social sequelae with the sequelae of burns.

Chronic progressive dermatoses are part of the 12 main therapeutic orientations of medical thermalism. In particular, burn scars are a very current indication. Crenotherapy allows the attenuation, or even the disappearance of: pruritus and dysesthesia, local inflammation, hypertrophy and sclerosis and favours the recovery of chronic superficial erosions. Fibrous scars, even old ones, respond favourably to thermal treatments. The thermal treatment combines baths which have a sedative, muscle-relaxing effect and which favour joint mobilisation, sprays which have a decongestant effect and above all thread-like showers which are carried out by jets of thermal water under high pressure for several minutes.

The primary endpoint is the self-assessment by the patient of the dermatological quality of life by the DLQI score at 6 months after the end of the treatment compared between the intervention group (immediate treatment) and the control group (delayed treatment after 6 months).

02

Conditions studied

  • Fibrosis
  • Breast Cancer
  • Head and Neck Cancer

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • fibrosis
  • breast cancer
  • radiotherapy
  • spa treatment
  • head and neck cancer
03

In context

Breast Neoplasms Reclassified

14,825 studies on the registry are indexed under Breast Neoplasms; 3,319 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 110 is above the median of 72 across 10,896 interventional studies indexed under Breast Neoplasms.

Browse Breast Neoplasms studies →

Lead sponsor

Association Francaise pour la Recherche Thermale is the lead sponsor of 20 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

Compared within Breast Neoplasms, this study's primary condition as ClinicalTrials.gg classifies it; the registry's first condition term is Fibrosis. The counts are of registry records indexed under each term, refreshed daily. How we classify →

04

Who can participate

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

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.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age ≥ 18 years
  • In situ or invasive breast cancer or cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract
  • DLQI ≥ 6 (at least moderate effect on patient's life)
  • General status WHO 0-1
  • Radiotherapy completed at least 6 months ago (with no maximum post radiotherapy delay)
  • Unilateral breast radiotherapy for breast cancer patients
  • Skin or soft tissue toxicity (- modules: Skin atrophy, fibrosis of deep connective tissues, fibrosis of superficial soft tissues) v4.0 grade ≥ 2
  • No inflammatory or infectious flare at inclusion
  • Female of : negative urine pregnancy test at inclusion
  • Patient informed and signed consent
  • Affiliation to a social security systeme or equivalent

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Progressive phase of cancer
  • disease
  • Patient undergoing specific treatment for breast cancer (except hormone therapy and/or adjuvant herceptin)
  • Bilateral breast/parietal radiotherapy
  • Breast prosthesis wearer for breast cancer patients
  • Patient with a tracheostomy for patients with head and neck cancer
  • Obvious skin ulceration in the site of interest
  • to spa treatment (acute inflammatory disease, active infections, heart failure with stage > 1, chronic respiratory failure, labile hypertension, bullous disease)
  • Chronic progressive dermatological disease
  • Women who are pregnant or likely to become pregnant within 6 months or who are breastfeeding
  • Persons deprived of liberty or under guardianship
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(6)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

CTCAE grade

The US National Cancer Institute’s scale of how severe an adverse event is — any unwanted medical event during a study, such as a symptom, an illness or an abnormal test result, whether or not a treatment caused it. Whether it did is judged separately.

1
Mild.
2
Moderate.
3
Severe.
4
Life-threatening.
5
Death due to the event.

“Side effects of earlier treatment resolved to grade 1 or less” means they have settled to mild or gone.

Childbearing potential

Able to become pregnant: from the first period until menopause, unless permanently unable to through surgery (removal of the womb, or of both ovaries or both fallopian tubes).

Criteria for people of childbearing potential usually ask for a negative pregnancy test and for contraception during the study and for a time after it.

Metastases

Cancer that has spread from where it began to other parts of the body. “Metastatic” cancer is cancer that has spread this way.

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant

Neoadjuvant treatment is given before the main treatment (usually surgery), often to shrink a tumour. Adjuvant treatment is given after it, to lower the chance of the cancer coming back.

Contraindication

A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.

NYHA class (heart failure)

The New York Heart Association’s four classes of how much heart failure limits physical activity.

I
No limits: ordinary activity causes no undue tiredness or breathlessness.
II
Slight limits: comfortable at rest, ordinary activity causes symptoms.
III
Marked limits: comfortable at rest, less than ordinary activity causes symptoms.
IV
Symptoms even at rest; any activity makes them worse.

Studies set their own limit — many outside heart failure leave out class III–IV, while heart failure studies may ask for a particular class. Check the class this study names.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Investigator)
Enrollment
110 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Immediate spa treatment

    The spa treatment must be carried out within a maximum of 6 weeks after the inclusion visit.

    Other: Thermal cure with a primary dermatological indication

  • Sham comparator
    Late spa treatment

    The spa treatment must be carried out after the 6-month visit.

    Other: Thermal cure with a primary dermatological indication

Interventions

  • OtherThermal cure with a primary dermatological indication

    The thermal treatment combines baths which have a sedative, muscle-relaxing effect and encourage joint mobilisation, sprays which have a decongestant effect and, above all, thread-like showers which are carried out by jets of thermal water under high pressure for several minutes plus educational workshops (relaxation, sophrology, hygiene...)

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Evaluation of the medical benefit in terms of quality of life on the dermatological sequelae of fibrosis after a dermatologically oriented spa treatment.

    Self-assessment by the patient of the dermatological quality of life by the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) score at 6 months after the end of the treatment compared between the intervention group (immediate treatment) and the control group (delayed treatment after 6 months). The DLQI score is between 0 and 30 where a high score indicates a significant impairment of quality of life.

    Time frame: 6 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Generic quality of life

    Evaluation of the medical benefit on generic quality of life. Patient self-assessment of generic quality of life using the EQ5D-3L. EQ-5D-3L is a standardized instrument developed by the EuroQol Group as a measure of health-related quality of life that can be used in a wide range of health conditions and treatments. The EQ5D has 6 items intended to measure general health. The index score is between -0.53 and 1 where a high value indicates a good quality of life. The perceived health status is between 0 and 100 where a high value indicates good health.

    Time frame: 6 months

  2. Cancer quality of life

    Evaluation of the medical benefit on quality of life in patients with breast cancer or Upper Aerodigestive Tract (UADT) Cancer. Patient self-assessment of quality of life using the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) QLQ C30 Score (Quality of Life of Cancer Patients). The EORTC QLQ-C30 has 15 domains. There is no total score. For each domain, the score is between 0 and 100 where a high score for overall health and functional dimensions represents a good quality of life; and a high score for symptomatic dimensions represents a high level of symptoms.

    Time frame: 6 months

  3. Senological or Upper Aerodigestive Tract (UADT) Cancer quality of life

    Evaluation of the medical benefit on the quality of senological life or Upper Aerodigestive Tract (UADT) Cancer. Patient self-assessment of breast quality of life using the specific QLQ-BR23 module (breast cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire). Patient self-assessment of Upper Aerodigestive Tract (UADT) Cancer quality of life using the specific QLQ-H\&N43 module (Quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer).

    Time frame: 6 months

  4. Sequelae self assessment

    Evaluation of the medical benefit on the self-assessment of the impact of radio induced sequelae. Self-assessment by the patient with an evaluation of the severity of the radiation-induced sequelae via the Pro-CTCAE self-questionnaire (Item 1: dry mouth, Item 2: difficulty swallowing, Item 3: mouth/throat sores, Item 4: cracked corners of the mouth, Item 5: changes in voice quality, Item 6: hoarseness, Item 7: changes in taste (Items 1-7 specific to head and neck cancer), item 25: skin dryness, item 28: itching, item 36: skin reaction to radiation, item 37: skin darkening, item 48: general pain, item 53: fatigue, item 54: anxiety, item 56: sadness, item 72: breast swelling and tenderness (item 72 specific to breast cancer)).

    Time frame: 6 months

  5. Lesions radiological assessment

    Hetero-evaluation of the clinical and imaging efficacy of treatment on post-radiation lesions with CTCAE scale (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). There is no total score. For each domain, the rank is between 1 and 5 where a high score represents the death.

    Time frame: 6 months

  6. Thickness radiological assessment

    Hetero-evaluation of the clinical and imaging efficacy of treatment on post-radiation lesions of thickness. Imaging assessment with blinded measurement by an independent radiologist of comparative thickness by ultrasound: Dermal radiotoxicity for breast cancer can indeed be defined as the difference in dermal thickness between the 2 breasts (lesion area and mirror area of the contralateral breast). Cutaneous radiotoxicity in head and neck cancers will be assessed by comparing irradiated areas with unexposed control areas. Dermal thickness is defined as the distance between the input ultrasound signal and the signal at the dermal-hypodermal interface at 6 months.

    Time frame: 6 months

  7. Volumetric aspect radiological assessment

    Hetero-evaluation of the clinical and imaging efficacy of treatment on post-radiation lesions with HBCS (Harvard-Breast-Cosmesis-Scale). Evaluation of the cutaneous and volumetric aspect by an evaluation carried out by the practitioner with the Harvard-breast-cosmesis-scale (HBCS) score at 6 months. The HBCS score is assessed by a 4-point Likert scale where a high value indicates a high severity, 1 represents excellent breast shape or texture, 2 means good, 3 average and 4 poor with a severely deformed breast.

    Time frame: 6 months

  8. Consumption of treatment

    Comparison of the type of treatment between the 2 groups.

    Time frame: 6 months

  9. Consumption of medical consultation

    Comparison of the number of hospitalisations, consultations, physiotherapy, specific cosmetic consultations between the 2 groups.

    Time frame: 6 months

  10. Adverse events

    Comparison of the adverse events in the 2 groups. Description of adverse events between the 2 groups.

    Time frame: 6 months

  11. Long-term cure quality of life benefice

    Evaluation of the stability of the long-term effect for the immediate cure group. Evaluation of the maintenance of benefits at 12 months (stability of the long term effect) on the primary outcome and secondary outcomes. Self-assessment by the patient of the dermatological quality of life by the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index).

    Time frame: 12 months

  12. Treatment effect size

    Evaluation of the effect size of the treatment for the delayed treatment group. Confirmation of the size of the effect of the treatment on the primary and main secondary endpoints between 6 and 12 months.

    Time frame: 12 months

  13. Subgroup analysis of the primary outcome

    Stratification based on the location of the treated site (following breast cancer or cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract). Stratification by center to test for a center effect.

    Time frame: 6 months

07

Study locations

12 of 13 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Binder-Foucard F, Bossard N, Delafosse P, Belot A, Woronoff AS, Remontet L; French network of cancer registries (Francim). Cancer incidence and mortality in France over the 1980-2012 period: solid tumors. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2014 Apr;62(2):95-108. doi: 10.1016/j.respe.2013.11.073. Epub 2014 Mar 7. PubMed 24613140 ↗
  • Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, Davies C, Elphinstone P, Evans V, Godwin J, Gray R, Hicks C, James S, MacKinnon E, McGale P, McHugh T, Peto R, Taylor C, Wang Y; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2087-106. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67887-7. PubMed 16360786 ↗
  • Mohanti BK, Bansal M. Late sequelae of radiotherapy in adults. Support Care Cancer. 2005 Oct;13(10):775-80. doi: 10.1007/s00520-004-0697-z. Epub 2005 Jul 22. PubMed 16041503 ↗
  • Burnet NG, Johansen J, Turesson I, Nyman J, Peacock JH. Describing patients' normal tissue reactions: concerning the possibility of individualising radiotherapy dose prescriptions based on potential predictive assays of normal tissue radiosensitivity. Steering Committee of the BioMed2 European Union Concerted Action Programme on the Development of Predictive Tests of Normal Tissue Response to Radiation Therapy. Int J Cancer. 1998 Dec 18;79(6):606-13. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19981218)79:63.0.co;2-y. PubMed 9842969 ↗
  • Johansson S, Svensson H, Denekamp J. Timescale of evolution of late radiation injury after postoperative radiotherapy of breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Oct 1;48(3):745-50. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(00)00674-x. PubMed 11020571 ↗
  • Sarin R, Dinshaw KA, Shrivastava SK, Sharma V, Deore SM. Therapeutic factors influencing the cosmetic outcome and late complications in the conservative management of early breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Sep 30;27(2):285-92. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(93)90239-r. PubMed 8407402 ↗
  • Safwat A, Bentzen SM, Turesson I, Hendry JH. Deterministic rather than stochastic factors explain most of the variation in the expression of skin telangiectasia after radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jan 1;52(1):198-204. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)02690-6. PubMed 11777639 ↗
  • Foray N, Verrelle P. [DNA repair and repair diseases: between molecular models and clinical reality]. Bull Cancer. 2011 Mar;98(3):257-75. doi: 10.1684/bdc.2011.1326. French. PubMed 21454154 ↗
  • Yarnold J, Brotons MC. Pathogenetic mechanisms in radiation fibrosis. Radiother Oncol. 2010 Oct;97(1):149-61. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.09.002. Epub 2010 Sep 29. PubMed 20888056 ↗
  • Ly CL, Khetpal S, Heller DR, Higgins SA, Killelea B, Alperovich M, Avraham T. Comparing complications in irradiated and non-irradiated free-flaps in patients with bilateral immediate breast reconstruction and unilateral post-mastectomy radiotherapy. Microsurgery. 2021 Oct;41(7):615-621. doi: 10.1002/micr.30747. Epub 2021 Apr 22. PubMed 33886127 ↗
  • Offersen BV, Alsner J, Nielsen HM, Jakobsen EH, Nielsen MH, Krause M, Stenbygaard L, Mjaaland I, Schreiber A, Kasti UM, Overgaard J; Danish Breast Cancer Group Radiation Therapy Committee. Hypofractionated Versus Standard Fractionated Radiotherapy in Patients With Early Breast Cancer or Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in a Randomized Phase III Trial: The DBCG HYPO Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Nov 1;38(31):3615-3625. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01363. Epub 2020 Sep 10. PubMed 32910709 ↗
  • Delanian S, Lefaix JL. Current management for late normal tissue injury: radiation-induced fibrosis and necrosis. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2007 Apr;17(2):99-107. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2006.11.006. PubMed 17395040 ↗
  • Jacobson G, Bhatia S, Smith BJ, Button AM, Bodeker K, Buatti J. Randomized trial of pentoxifylline and vitamin E vs standard follow-up after breast irradiation to prevent breast fibrosis, evaluated by tissue compliance meter. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Mar 1;85(3):604-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.06.042. Epub 2012 Jul 28. PubMed 22846413 ↗
  • Wong RK, Bensadoun RJ, Boers-Doets CB, Bryce J, Chan A, Epstein JB, Eaby-Sandy B, Lacouture ME. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of acute and late radiation reactions from the MASCC Skin Toxicity Study Group. Support Care Cancer. 2013 Oct;21(10):2933-48. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1896-2. Epub 2013 Aug 14. PubMed 23942595 ↗
  • Carl UM, Feldmeier JJ, Schmitt G, Hartmann KA. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for late sequelae in women receiving radiation after breast-conserving surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Mar 15;49(4):1029-31. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(00)01515-7. PubMed 11240244 ↗
  • Hardy P. [Crenotherapy applied to scarring due to burns]. Ann Chir Plast. 1968 Jun;13(2):151-6. No abstract available. French. PubMed 5678765 ↗
  • Kwiatkowski F, Mouret-Reynier MA, Duclos M, Leger-Enreille A, Bridon F, Hahn T, Van Praagh-Doreau I, Travade A, Gironde M, Bezy O, Lecadet J, Vasson MP, Jouvency S, Cardinaud S, Roques CF, Bignon YJ. Long term improved quality of life by a 2-week group physical and educational intervention shortly after breast cancer chemotherapy completion. Results of the 'Programme of Accompanying women after breast Cancer treatment completion in Thermal resorts' (PACThe) randomised clinical trial of 251 patients. Eur J Cancer. 2013 May;49(7):1530-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.021. Epub 2013 Jan 24. PubMed 23352440 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 13, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05874492
Lead sponsor
Association Francaise pour la Recherche Thermale
Collaborators
Floralis
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
May 25, 2023
Start date
Jan 29, 2024
Primary completion
Dec 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 13, 2026

Study contacts

Nans FUSTIER
Contact
nans.fustier@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
0476765040
Claire Eychenne
Contact
claire.eychenne@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
0476766413
Guillaume Vogin
principal investigator · Centre François Baclesse

Oversight

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

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

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