CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT06293157CarboMetaspineUpdated Dec 16, 2025

Carbon Fiber Transpedicular Screws in Treatment of Spinal Metastatic Disease

An interventional study of Transpedicular spinal stabilization - carbon fibers-based implants and Transpedicular spinal stabilization - titanium implants in Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression and Metastasis Spine, sponsored by Copernicus Memorial Hospital. Recruiting at 5 sites in Poland. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-12-16.

Sponsored by Copernicus Memorial Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
226
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Background: Spinal metastatic disease constitute a serious clinical problem in oncology. Bones are the third most common organ where metastases are located, and the spine is the place where they are most often located. Due to the complexity of the clinical problem, metastatic spine disease remains of interest to many medical specialties: neurosurgery, orthopedics, clinical oncology, radiotherapy and rehabilitation. With the development of modern diagnostic methods and wider access to them, the demand for neurosurgical treatment in this group of patients is growing. Surgical treatment is undertaken in cases of spinal cord compression, instability, spinal deformation or pain that is resistant to radiotherapy. The standard treatment in most cases is posterior instrumentation of the spine using titanium pedicle screws. Unfortunately, these systems cause numerous artifacts in diagnostic imaging, both in CT and MRI. These distortions make it difficult to plan radiotherapy and determine the optimal dose that would avoid healthy tissues. Moreover, artifacts could make difficult postoperative follow-ups aimed at assessing local recurrence. The solution to these problems is the use of radiolucent implants. There are systems based on carbon fibers embedded in PEEK which do not cause typical artifacts for titanium implants.

Study plan: The open, three-arm, prospective randomized study is planned to involve 226 patients with metastatic disease of the spine, with a known or undiagnosed primary site. Patients will be qualified for 2 types of interventions. The first one includes treatment with stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) in the first stage of treatment and early instrumentation of the spine with titanium implants. The second type of intervention includes patients qualified for surgical treatment using spine stabilization and postoperative SBRT. Patients within this arm will be randomized into two groups differing in the type of material the instrumentation is made of: carbon-PEEK or titanium. The study group will be patients stabilized with carbon implants, and the control group will be those who will have titanium implants.

Study population: The study includes adult patients with metastatic spine disease, with a known or unknown primary tumor, qualified for SBRT and surgical treatment.

Assumed effects: It is assumed that the treatment proposed in the project would extend progression free survival by several months or achieve local control in an additional 5% of patients. Moreover, by improving the quality of imaging, earlier diagnosis of local recurrences and implementation of appropriate locoregional treatment would be possible.

02

Conditions studied

  • Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression
  • Metastasis Spine

Keywords

  • metastatic spinal disease
  • stereotactic body radiotherapy
  • spinal cord compression
  • carbon fiber reinforced implants
03

Who can participate

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

Inclusion criteria

  • Metastatic spinal disease,
  • ECOG quality of life of 0-2,
  • Eligibility for SBRT treatment,
  • Expected survival time >3 months,
  • Signed informed consent to participate in the study,
  • Sufficient organ capacity allowing to survive the perioperative period.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Primary tumor of the spine,
  • Age \<18 years old,
  • Expected survival time \<3 months,
  • Eligibility for palliative radiotherapy,
  • No informed consent to participate in the study,
  • Pregnancy or breastfeeding,
  • The advancement of the disease preventing the technical use of implants.
04

Study design

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

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Transpedicular spinal stabilization using carbon system + SBRT

    Transpedicular spinal stabilization using a radiolucent composite system made of carbon fibers and PEEK followed by stereotactic radiotherapy of the spine at a dose of 5x5 Gy (25 Gy in the total dose)

    Procedure: Transpedicular spinal stabilization - carbon fibers-based implants · Radiation: Stereotactic body radiotherapy

  • Active comparator
    Transpedicular spinal stabilization using titanium system + SBRT

    Transpedicular spinal stabilization using a titanium system followed by stereotactic radiotherapy of the spine at a dose of 5x5 Gy (25 Gy in the total dose)

    Procedure: Transpedicular spinal stabilization - titanium implants · Radiation: Stereotactic body radiotherapy

  • Sham comparator
    SBRT + Transpedicular spinal stabilization using titanium system

    Transpedicular spinal stabilization using a titanium system preceded with stereotactic spine radiotherapy at a dose of 5x5 Gy (25 Gy in the total dose) as the first stage of treatment

    Procedure: Transpedicular spinal stabilization - titanium implants · Radiation: Stereotactic body radiotherapy

Interventions

  • ProcedureTranspedicular spinal stabilization - carbon fibers-based implants

    Transpedicular stabilization with carbon fiber and PEEK-based implants in one of the two possible variants - first involves a large skin incision and separation of the back extensor muscles; second is associated with minimally invasive, which is percutaneous procedure that allows the stabilization with implants without the need to detach the muscles, using only a small skin incision.

  • ProcedureTranspedicular spinal stabilization - titanium implants

    Transpedicular stabilization with titanium implants in one of the two possible variants - first involves a large skin incision and separation of the back extensor muscles; second is associated with minimally invasive, which is percutaneous procedure that allows the stabilization with implants without the need to detach the muscles, using only a small skin incision.

  • RadiationStereotactic body radiotherapy

    Spinal tumors will be treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 5x5 Gy (25 Gy in a total dose); either prior to or post-surgical treatment, accordingly the allocation to one of the study arms.

    Also known as: SBRT

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. The assessment of time to local recurrence after treatment with SBRT.

    Time frame: 5 years

  2. The assessment of frequency of local recurrence after treatment with SBRT.

    Time frame: 5 years

Secondary outcomes

  1. DICE convergence factor evaluation between groups of patients.

    The use of convergence factor assessment will allow for comparison of similarity in planned SBRT between all groups. This will allow an indirect assessment of difficulties in planning treatment by a radiotherapist using objective tools.

    Time frame: 1 day

  2. The subjective difficulty of planning radiotherapy treatment.

    Using a numerical scale from 0-10, the radiotherapist will assess the difficulty of planning, tumor coverage, and delineation of the spinal cord depending on the group assessed in the study.

    Time frame: 1 day

  3. The frequency of radiation complications assessed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTC).

    Titanium instrumentation generates significant artifacts in radiological imaging used for radiotherapy planning. The use of opaque, radiolucent material allows for radiotherapy planning to cover a smaller area. This may reduce the incidence of radiation-related complications in nearby organs (OAR - organ at risk). These complications will be assessed by the radiation therapist according to the standardized NCI CTC scale. Potentially smaller quantity of organ complications could be an advantage supporting the use of carbon implants.

    Time frame: 5 years

  4. Failure rate of stabilizing systems.

    Titanium and carbon fiber show similar biocompatibility. The biomechanical properties of these materials are also similar. In vitro studies have shown a similar effect failure rate of carbon pedicle screws compared to standard titanium ones. However, carbon rods have greater flexibility and structure connected using these may show more frequent loosening in vivo, especially in cases with impaired sagittal balance. This was not an issue analyzed in the literature. The frequency of instrument failure is of great importance for clinical practice because most such cases require operative revision.

    Time frame: 5 years

  5. Pain assessment on the VAS scale between groups.

    One of the goals of surgical treatment is to treat mechanical pain caused by segmental instability. SBRT is a good method of treating biological pain. There are no comparisons of analgesic effects between transpedicular systems. Greater pain reduction allows for more effective and longer ability to walk, lower consumption of painkillers, and lower incidence of complications related to immobilization (thrombosis, bedsores, respiratory infections), which also has pharmacoeconomic implications.

    Time frame: 5 years

  6. Frequency of postoperative infections.

    Postoperative wound infections are an inherent complication of surgical procedures. The longer the procedure, the more often inflammatory complications are observed, especially in oncological population, which has a higher average age of treated patients, a greater number of burdens, frequent immunosuppression due to systemic treatment, and malnutrition in the form of decreased biochemical parameters (total protein and albumin). Titanium has good properties in this aspect. Bacterial biofilms, is rarely formed on it, which means that patients can be treated more often without the need to remove the implants. It is unclear how carbon fiber system will perform in these cases. There are not made of metal, but of carbon fiber embedded in polymer. Assessment of the frequency of inflammatory complications and their course will provide the answer to whether This instrumentation allows for a similar management strategy in clinical settings.

    Time frame: 5 years

  7. Differences in dosimetric parameter Dmin PTV/CTV.

    Time frame: 1 day

  8. Differences in dosimetric parameter D95.

    Time frame: 1 day

  9. Differences in dosimetric parameter D98.

    Time frame: 1 day

  10. Differences in dosimetric parameter D100.

    Time frame: 1 day

  11. Differences in dosimetric parameter conformity index (CI) / homogeneity index (HI)).

    Time frame: 1 day

06

Study locations

1 of 5 sites recruiting
  • Department of Neurosurgery, Functional Neurosurgery and Stereotaxy, Dr. Jan Biziel University Hospital No. 2 in Bydgoszcz
    Bydgoszcz, Poland
    Active, not recruiting
  • Professor Franciszek Łukaszczyk Oncology Center in Bydgoszcz - National Research Institute
    Bydgoszcz, Poland
    Active, not recruiting
  • Department of Teleradiotherapy, Lower Silesian Center of Oncology, Pulmonology and Hematology
    Wroclaw, Poland
    Active, not recruiting
  • University Center of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Jan Mikulicz-Radecki University Clinical Hospital in Wrocław
    Wroclaw, Poland
    Active, not recruiting
  • Copernicus Memorial Hospital in Łódź, Poland
    Lodz, Łódź Voivodeship 93-513, Poland
    Recruiting
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Cofano F, Di Perna G, Monticelli M, Marengo N, Ajello M, Mammi M, Vercelli G, Petrone S, Tartara F, Zenga F, Lanotte M, Garbossa D. Carbon fiber reinforced vs titanium implants for fixation in spinal metastases: A comparative clinical study about safety and effectiveness of the new "carbon-strategy". J Clin Neurosci. 2020 May;75:106-111. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2020.03.013. Epub 2020 Mar 12. PubMed 32173153 ↗
  • Boriani S, Tedesco G, Ming L, Ghermandi R, Amichetti M, Fossati P, Krengli M, Mavilla L, Gasbarrini A. Carbon-fiber-reinforced PEEK fixation system in the treatment of spine tumors: a preliminary report. Eur Spine J. 2018 Apr;27(4):874-881. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5258-5. Epub 2017 Aug 16. PubMed 28815357 ↗
  • Nevelsky A, Borzov E, Daniel S, Bar-Deroma R. Perturbation effects of the carbon fiber-PEEK screws on radiotherapy dose distribution. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Mar;18(2):62-68. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12046. Epub 2017 Feb 7. PubMed 28300369 ↗
  • Ringel F, Ryang YM, Kirschke JS, Muller BS, Wilkens JJ, Brodard J, Combs SE, Meyer B. Radiolucent Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Pedicle Screws for Treatment of Spinal Tumors: Advantages for Radiation Planning and Follow-Up Imaging. World Neurosurg. 2017 Sep;105:294-301. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.091. Epub 2017 May 3. PubMed 28478252 ↗
  • Neal MT, Richards AE, Curley KL, Patel NP, Ashman JB, Vora SA, Kalani MA. Carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK instrumentation in the spinal oncology population: a retrospective series demonstrating technique, feasibility, and clinical outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2021 May;50(5):E13. doi: 10.3171/2021.2.FOCUS20995. PubMed 33932921 ↗
  • Lindtner RA, Schmid R, Nydegger T, Konschake M, Schmoelz W. Pedicle screw anchorage of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK screws under cyclic loading. Eur Spine J. 2018 Aug;27(8):1775-1784. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5538-8. Epub 2018 Mar 1. PubMed 29497852 ↗
  • Krystkiewicz K, Kuncman L, Orzechowska MJ, Pytlarz B, Kowal A, Siwak M, Fijuth J, Ranoszek K, Pajdzinski M, Zubiel K, Arczewski F, Dziedzic K, Tosik M. CARBOMETASPINE: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial of carbonfiber spinal fixation in metastatic disease. BMC Cancer. 2025 Sep 2;25(1):1409. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-14731-7. PubMed 40898139 ↗

Study documents

  • Informed consent form · May 9, 2025

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06293157
Lead sponsor
Copernicus Memorial Hospital
Collaborators
Medical Research Agency, Poland
Responsible party
Kamil Krystkiewicz (Principal Investigator, Copernicus Memorial Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 5, 2024
Start date
Dec 1, 2023
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 31, 2033 (estimated)
Last update
Dec 16, 2025

Study contacts

Kamil Krystkiewicz, PhD
Contact
kamil.krystkiewicz@gmail.com
+48426895341
Marcin Tosik, PhD
Contact
sekretariat.neurochirurgia@kopernik.lodz.pl
+48426895341
Kamil Krystkiewicz, PhD
principal investigator · Department of Neurosurgery and Neurooncology, Copernicus Memoriał Hospital in Łódź

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