Cargando…
Non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression
BACKGROUND: The optimal EBRT schedule for MSCC is undetermined. Our aim was to determine whether a single fraction (SF) was non-inferior to five daily fractions (5Fx), for functional motor outcome. METHODS: Patients not proceeding with surgical decompression in this multicentre non-inferiority, Phas...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7188681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32157242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0768-z |
_version_ | 1783527343877259264 |
---|---|
author | Thirion, Pierre G. Dunne, Mary T. Kelly, Paul J. Flavin, Aileen O’Sullivan, Joe M. Hacking, Dayle Sasiadek, Wojciech Small, Cormac Pomeroy, Maeve M. Martin, Joseph McArdle, Orla Parker, Imelda O’Sullivan, Lydia S. Shannon, Aoife M. Clayton-Lea, Angela Collins, Conor D. Stevenson, Michael R. Alvarez-Iglesias, Alberto Armstrong, John G. Moriarty, Michael |
author_facet | Thirion, Pierre G. Dunne, Mary T. Kelly, Paul J. Flavin, Aileen O’Sullivan, Joe M. Hacking, Dayle Sasiadek, Wojciech Small, Cormac Pomeroy, Maeve M. Martin, Joseph McArdle, Orla Parker, Imelda O’Sullivan, Lydia S. Shannon, Aoife M. Clayton-Lea, Angela Collins, Conor D. Stevenson, Michael R. Alvarez-Iglesias, Alberto Armstrong, John G. Moriarty, Michael |
author_sort | Thirion, Pierre G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The optimal EBRT schedule for MSCC is undetermined. Our aim was to determine whether a single fraction (SF) was non-inferior to five daily fractions (5Fx), for functional motor outcome. METHODS: Patients not proceeding with surgical decompression in this multicentre non-inferiority, Phase 3 trial were randomised to 10 Gy/SF or 20 Gy/5Fx. A change in mobility from baseline to 5 weeks for each patient, was evaluated by a Modified Tomita score: 1 = ‘Walk unaided’, 2 = ‘With walking aid’ and 3 = ‘Bed-bound’. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a detrimental change of −0.4 in the mean difference between arms. RESULTS: One-hundred and twelve eligible patients were enrolled. Seventy-three patients aged 30–87 were evaluated for the primary analysis. The 95% CI for the difference in the mean change in mobility scores between arms was −0.12 to 0.6. Since −0.4 is not included in the interval, there is evidence that 10 Gy/SF is non-inferior to 20 Gy/5Fx. One grade 3 AE was reported in the 5Fx arm. Twelve (26%) patients in the 5Fx arm had a Grade 2–3 AE compared with six (11%) patients in the SF arm (p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: For mobility preservation, one 10-Gy fraction is non-inferior to 20 Gy in five fractions, in patients with MSCC not proceeding with surgical decompression. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Cancer Trials Ireland ICORG 05-03; NCT00968643; EU-20952. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7188681 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71886812021-03-11 Non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression Thirion, Pierre G. Dunne, Mary T. Kelly, Paul J. Flavin, Aileen O’Sullivan, Joe M. Hacking, Dayle Sasiadek, Wojciech Small, Cormac Pomeroy, Maeve M. Martin, Joseph McArdle, Orla Parker, Imelda O’Sullivan, Lydia S. Shannon, Aoife M. Clayton-Lea, Angela Collins, Conor D. Stevenson, Michael R. Alvarez-Iglesias, Alberto Armstrong, John G. Moriarty, Michael Br J Cancer Article BACKGROUND: The optimal EBRT schedule for MSCC is undetermined. Our aim was to determine whether a single fraction (SF) was non-inferior to five daily fractions (5Fx), for functional motor outcome. METHODS: Patients not proceeding with surgical decompression in this multicentre non-inferiority, Phase 3 trial were randomised to 10 Gy/SF or 20 Gy/5Fx. A change in mobility from baseline to 5 weeks for each patient, was evaluated by a Modified Tomita score: 1 = ‘Walk unaided’, 2 = ‘With walking aid’ and 3 = ‘Bed-bound’. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a detrimental change of −0.4 in the mean difference between arms. RESULTS: One-hundred and twelve eligible patients were enrolled. Seventy-three patients aged 30–87 were evaluated for the primary analysis. The 95% CI for the difference in the mean change in mobility scores between arms was −0.12 to 0.6. Since −0.4 is not included in the interval, there is evidence that 10 Gy/SF is non-inferior to 20 Gy/5Fx. One grade 3 AE was reported in the 5Fx arm. Twelve (26%) patients in the 5Fx arm had a Grade 2–3 AE compared with six (11%) patients in the SF arm (p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: For mobility preservation, one 10-Gy fraction is non-inferior to 20 Gy in five fractions, in patients with MSCC not proceeding with surgical decompression. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Cancer Trials Ireland ICORG 05-03; NCT00968643; EU-20952. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-03-11 2020-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7188681/ /pubmed/32157242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0768-z Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Cancer Research UK 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Note This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). |
spellingShingle | Article Thirion, Pierre G. Dunne, Mary T. Kelly, Paul J. Flavin, Aileen O’Sullivan, Joe M. Hacking, Dayle Sasiadek, Wojciech Small, Cormac Pomeroy, Maeve M. Martin, Joseph McArdle, Orla Parker, Imelda O’Sullivan, Lydia S. Shannon, Aoife M. Clayton-Lea, Angela Collins, Conor D. Stevenson, Michael R. Alvarez-Iglesias, Alberto Armstrong, John G. Moriarty, Michael Non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression |
title | Non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression |
title_full | Non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression |
title_fullStr | Non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression |
title_full_unstemmed | Non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression |
title_short | Non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression |
title_sort | non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7188681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32157242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0768-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thirionpierreg noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT dunnemaryt noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT kellypaulj noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT flavinaileen noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT osullivanjoem noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT hackingdayle noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT sasiadekwojciech noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT smallcormac noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT pomeroymaevem noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT martinjoseph noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT mcardleorla noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT parkerimelda noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT osullivanlydias noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT shannonaoifem noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT claytonleaangela noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT collinsconord noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT stevensonmichaelr noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT alvareziglesiasalberto noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT armstrongjohng noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression AT moriartymichael noninferiorityrandomisedphase3trialcomparingtworadiationschedulessinglevsfivefractionsinmalignantspinalcordcompression |