Conventional or Video-Assisted Surgery in Treating Patients With Lung Metastases
RATIONALE: Video-assisted surgery may have fewer side effects than conventional surgery in patients with lung metastases. It is not yet known whether conventional surgery or video-assisted surgery is more effective in treating lung metastases.
PURPOSE: Randomized phase III trial to compare the effectiveness of conventional surgery with that of video-assisted surgery in treating patients who have lung metastases.
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:||Phase III Randomized Prospective Trial of Open Versus Minimally Invasive, Video-Assisted Resection of Pulmonary Metastases|
|Study Start Date:||February 1999|
OBJECTIVES: I. Compare the overall survival and failure free survival of patients with isolated pulmonary metastases treated with minimally invasive (video assisted) resection or open resection. II. Compare patterns of recurrence in these patients after these treatments, and determine what factors are predictive of recurrence. III. Describe and compare the complications and morbidity associated with minimally-invasive and open approaches to metastasectomy in these patients. IV. Test whether the patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery will have a significantly better quality of life over a six month period than those undergoing an open resection.
OUTLINE: This is a randomized study. Patients are stratified according to histology (sarcoma vs epithelial vs germ cell vs melanoma) and disease laterality. After spiral CT showing pulmonary nodules are amenable to video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) resection with curative intent, patients are randomized to undergo either open resection (thoracotomy, median sternotomy, or bilateral sternothoracotomy) (arm I) or minimally-invasive video-assisted resection (arm II). Patients with isolated recurrence in the chest should have the recurrence(s) resected if feasible. The original resection approach (open versus VATS) should be the preferred method for the second resection, but is not required. Quality of life is assessed prior to randomization and then at 30 days, 3 months, and 6 months. Patients are followed every 3 months for 1 year and then every 6 months thereafter.
PROJECTED ACCRUAL: There will be 530 patients accrued into this study in approximately 3 years.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00003724
Show 45 Study Locations
|Study Chair:||Joshua R. Sonett, MD||University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center|