Low-Dose Weekly vs High-Dose Cisplatin (RADIO)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03649048|
Recruitment Status : Recruiting
First Posted : August 28, 2018
Last Update Posted : March 5, 2020
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma||Drug: High-Dose Cisplatin Drug: Low-Dose Cisplatin Radiation: Radiotherapy||Not Applicable|
Human papilloma virus-related oropharynx cancer is increasing in incidence and is now the most common indication for LASCCHN CRT. It more commonly affects younger patients without other comorbidities and is associated with high rates of cure. This creates a survivorship dilemma, as these patients suffer a greater and more prolonged impact from chronic treatment effects such as hearing loss on their HRQOL. Furthermore, this cohort of patients is more likely to be engaged in contributing to societal and economic productivity for a more prolonged period of time. Minimizing long term side effects through strategies to better individualize treatment has been recognized as a priority by the US NIH.
Efforts to identify risk factors for cisplatin toxicity have been previously reported in pediatric cancer patients. Pussegoda and colleagues identified greater risk of hearing loss with cisplatin in children who carried single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TPMT) and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) genes. However, the role of these genes in predicting ototoxicity risk has remained controversial with both confirmatory and conflicting reports. Two independent studies identified SNPs in the gene acylphosphatase 2 (ACYP2) as being predictive of ototoxicity in pediatric populations. Additional studies have implicated drug transporters involved in cisplatin disposition including the multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1 (MATE1) to be associated with platinum response and toxicities. In vitro experiments and know-out studies identified cisplatin as a substrate of MATE1. To date, there remains a paucity of data investigating the association between genetic factors and hearing loss in adult LASCCHN patients. A prospective cohort study conducted at LHSC in collaboration with Dr. Richard Kim studied 206 adult LASCCHN patients receiving CRT with cisplatin and identified four independent risk factors for cisplatin-related hearing loss. Risk of hearing loss was increased with the presence of COMT SNPs (HR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.17 - 2.52) while MATE1 reduced the risk (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26 - 0.84). The risk of hearing loss was reduced with cisplatin administered on a weekly low dose (LD) compared to a HD schedule. PFS and OS were similar between SNP cohorts and patients treated with weekly LD cisplatin and HD cisplatin regimens. To validate these results and confirm benefits on the pragmatic endpoint of hearing-related QOL, the investigators propose a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing HD and weekly LD cisplatin.
Opinion leaders such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines endorse the use of weekly LD cisplatin as a reasonable alternative to HD cisplatin when administered concurrently with radiation. While the study conducted at LHSC observed weekly LD patients had reduced ototoxicity with similar efficacy compared to HD patients, there is no randomized control trial data in LASCCHN to support this practice. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines support HD cisplatin in this setting based strength of evidence. Therefore, the optimal schedule and dosing of cisplatin when administered as part of CRT in the curative intent treatment of patients with LASCCHN remains unresolved supporting clinical equipoise as to which constitutes the "best" approach.
The investigators primary hypothesis is that LD weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m² is associated with reduced frequency of severe hearing loss and improved hearing-related QOL when compared to conventional HD cisplatin 100 mg/m² days 1, 22 & 43 (control arm) in LASCCHN patients treated with CRT. Furthermore, the investigators hypothesize that a significant proportion of the risk of cisplatin-related hearing loss is attributable to individual differences in pharmacogenomics factors affecting cisplatin disposition that could be identified prior to treatment.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Estimated Enrollment :||100 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Primary Purpose:||Supportive Care|
|Official Title:||Randomized Trial Comparing Low-Dose Weekly to High-Dose Cisplatin Concurrent With Radiation for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.|
|Actual Study Start Date :||November 5, 2018|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||February 2021|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||February 2025|
|Active Comparator: ARM 1: High-Dose Cisplatin days 1, 22 & 43 with radiotherapy||
Drug: High-Dose Cisplatin
Intravenous administration of High-Dose Cisplatin
Participating centres are to follow their local radiation treatment planning and delivery techniques.
|Active Comparator: ARM 2: Low-Dose Cisplatin Q 1 wk + radiotherapy||
Drug: Low-Dose Cisplatin
Intravenous administration of Low-Dose Cisplatin
Participating centres are to follow their local radiation treatment planning and delivery techniques.
- Hearing related quality of life (QOL) [ Time Frame: 1-year post start of treatment ]Assessed with the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA) Questionnaires. Scored by a points system. The higher the points the more significant the hearing handicap.
- Hearing related quality of life (QOL) [ Time Frame: 1-year post start of treatment ]Assessed with the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE). Scored by a points system. The higher the points the more significant the hearing handicap.
- Compare Incidence of > Grade 2 hearing loss [ Time Frame: At 1 year post start of treatment ]A comprehensive audiological examination including case history, otoscopy, behavioural and physiological auditory measures will be conducted prior to an ototoxic drug administration. Subsequent audiology testing will be performed at 3, 6 and 12 months post-start of treatment.
- Compare Incidence of > Grade 1 hearing loss [ Time Frame: At 1 year post start of treatment ]Will be scored according to the CTCAE v4.02 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events)
- Proportion of patients recommended for hearing amplification [ Time Frame: at year 1 post start of treatment ]This information will be specified on the audiology report and collected on the CRF
- Compare incidence of > grade 2 hearing loss [ Time Frame: At 6 months and at 1 year post start of treatment ]This information will be specified on the audiology report and collected on the CRF
- Change in Health related Quality of Life (HRQOL) [ Time Frame: At 1 year post start of treatment ]Measured using the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) QLQ H&N35 (Quality of Life Questionnaire Head & Neck). According to the EORTC scoring guidelines All of the scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100. A high scale score represents a higher response level. Thus a high score for a functional scale represents a high / healthy level of functioning, a high score for the global health status / QoL represents a high QoL, but a high score for a symptom scale / item represents a high level of symptomatology / problems.
- Incidence of > Grade 3 treatment-related neuropathy [ Time Frame: At baseline, day 21 and day 42 ]Measured using the CTCAE Version 4.02 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events)
- Change in neuropathy-associated QOL [ Time Frame: At year 1 post start of treatment ]FACT/GOG-Ntx-4 questionnaire subscale (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity version 4 subscale). According to the FACT-GOG scoring guidelines Higher scores for the scales and subscales indicate better quality of life.
- Incidence of any treatment related nephropathy [ Time Frame: A baseline, day 21 and day 42 ]Measured using the CTCAE Version 4.02
- Prevalence of persistent > Grade 3 nephropathy [ Time Frame: At 1 year post start of treatment ]Measured using the CTCAE Version 4.02
- Evaluate the validity of MATE1 SNPs as a predictor of ototoxicity [ Time Frame: At baseline ]Mutational status will be analyzed on samples collected at baseline
- Evaluate the validity of COMT SNPs as a predictor of ototoxicity [ Time Frame: At baseline ]Mutational status will be analyzed at baseline
- Change in Health related Quality of Life (HRQOL) [ Time Frame: At 1 year post start of treatment ]Measured using the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) QLQ-30 (Quality of Life Questionnaire). According to the EORTC scoring guidelines All of the scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100. A high scale score represents a higher response level. Thus a high score for a functional scale represents a high / healthy level of functioning, a high score for the global health status / QoL represents a high QoL, but a high score for a symptom scale / item represents a high level of symptomatology / problems.
- Overall Survival [ Time Frame: Captured annually starting at a year post start of treatment and continued for up to 5 years following date of randomization. ]Defined as time from randomization to death from any cause
- Progression-free Survival [ Time Frame: Captured annually starting at a year post start of treatment and continued for up to 5 years following date of randomization. ]Defined as time from randomization to disease progression at any site or death.
- Locoregional control [ Time Frame: Captured annually starting at a year post start of treatment and continued for up to 5 years following start of treatment. ]Defined as local if within the zone of the primary tumour, and as regional if occurring elsewhere including neck lymph nodes.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis [ Time Frame: At 1 year post start of treatment ]Using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire(EuroQol 5 level questionnaire). The EQ-5D-5L descriptive system comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and extreme problems. Patient is asked to indicate their health by ticking the box next to the most appropriate statement in each of the five dimensions. This decision results in a 1-digit number that expresses the level selected for that dimension. The digits for the five dimensions can be combined into a 5-digit number that describes the patient's health state.
- Radiation doses to the cochlea [ Time Frame: At 1 year post-start of treatment. ]To analyze the relationship between cochlear dose and hearing endpoint.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03649048
|Contact: Sara Kuruvilla, MD||(519)685-8500||sara@email@example.com|
|Juravinski Cancer Centre||Recruiting|
|Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 3Z5|
|Contact: Brandon Meyers, MD 905-521-2100 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|London Regional Cancer Program||Recruiting|
|London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5W9|
|Contact: Sara Kuruvilla, MD 519-685-8500 Sara.Kuruvilla@lhsc.on.ca|
|Principal Investigator:||Sara Kuruvilla, MD||London Health Sciences Centre, London Regional Cancer Program|