Cargando…

The PRO-ACTIVE trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND: Swallowing therapy is commonly provided as a treatment to lessen the risk or severity of dysphagia secondary to radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC); however, best practice is not yet established. This trial will compare the effectiveness of prophylactic (high and low intensi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martino, R., Fitch, M. I., Fuller, C. D., Hope, A., Krisciunas, G., Langmore, S. E., Lazarus, C., Macdonald, C. L., McCulloch, T., Mills, G., Palma, D. A., Pytynia, K., Ringash, J., Sultanem, K., Theurer, J., Thorpe, K. E., Hutcheson, K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513207/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34645411
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08826-0
_version_ 1784583167776129024
author Martino, R.
Fitch, M. I.
Fuller, C. D.
Hope, A.
Krisciunas, G.
Langmore, S. E.
Lazarus, C.
Macdonald, C. L.
McCulloch, T.
Mills, G.
Palma, D. A.
Pytynia, K.
Ringash, J.
Sultanem, K.
Theurer, J.
Thorpe, K. E.
Hutcheson, K.
author_facet Martino, R.
Fitch, M. I.
Fuller, C. D.
Hope, A.
Krisciunas, G.
Langmore, S. E.
Lazarus, C.
Macdonald, C. L.
McCulloch, T.
Mills, G.
Palma, D. A.
Pytynia, K.
Ringash, J.
Sultanem, K.
Theurer, J.
Thorpe, K. E.
Hutcheson, K.
author_sort Martino, R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Swallowing therapy is commonly provided as a treatment to lessen the risk or severity of dysphagia secondary to radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC); however, best practice is not yet established. This trial will compare the effectiveness of prophylactic (high and low intensity) versus reactive interventions for swallowing in patients with HNC undergoing RT. METHODS: This multi-site, international randomized clinical trial (RCT) will include 952 adult patients receiving radiotherapy for HNC and who are at high risk for post-RT dysphagia. Participants will be randomized to receive one of three interventions for swallowing during RT: RE-ACTIVE, started promptly if/when dysphagia is identified; PRO-ACTIVE EAT, low intensity prophylactic intervention started before RT commences; or, PRO-ACTIVE EAT+EXERCISE, high intensity prophylactic intervention also started before RT commences. We hypothesize that the PRO-ACTIVE therapies are more effective than late RE-ACTIVE therapy; and, that the more intensive PRO-ACTIVE (EAT + EXERCISE) is superior to the low intensive PRO-ACTIVE (EAT). The primary endpoint of effectiveness is duration of feeding tube dependency one year post radiation therapy, selected as a pragmatic outcome valued equally by diverse stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers and clinicians). Secondary outcomes will include objective measures of swallow physiology and function, pneumonia and weight loss, along with various patient-reported swallowing-related outcomes, such as quality of life, symptom burden, and self-efficacy. DISCUSSION: Dysphagia is a common and potentially life-threatening chronic toxicity of radiotherapy, and a priority issue for HNC survivors. Yet, the optimal timing and intensity of swallowing therapy provided by a speech-language pathologist is not known. With no clearly preferred strategy, current practice is fraught with substantial variation. The pragmatic PRO-ACTIVE trial aims to specifically address the decisional dilemma of when swallowing therapy should begin (i.e., before or after a swallowing problem develops). The critical impact of this dilemma is heightened by the growing number of young HNC patients in healthcare systems that need to allocate resources most effectively. The results of the PRO-ACTIVE trial will address the global uncertainty regarding best practice for dysphagia management in HNC patients receiving radiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered with the US Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the PRO-ACTIVE trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, under the identifier NCT03455608; First posted: Mar 6, 2018; Last verified: Jun 17, 2021. Protocol Version: 1.3 (January 27, 2020).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8513207
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85132072021-10-20 The PRO-ACTIVE trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer Martino, R. Fitch, M. I. Fuller, C. D. Hope, A. Krisciunas, G. Langmore, S. E. Lazarus, C. Macdonald, C. L. McCulloch, T. Mills, G. Palma, D. A. Pytynia, K. Ringash, J. Sultanem, K. Theurer, J. Thorpe, K. E. Hutcheson, K. BMC Cancer Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Swallowing therapy is commonly provided as a treatment to lessen the risk or severity of dysphagia secondary to radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC); however, best practice is not yet established. This trial will compare the effectiveness of prophylactic (high and low intensity) versus reactive interventions for swallowing in patients with HNC undergoing RT. METHODS: This multi-site, international randomized clinical trial (RCT) will include 952 adult patients receiving radiotherapy for HNC and who are at high risk for post-RT dysphagia. Participants will be randomized to receive one of three interventions for swallowing during RT: RE-ACTIVE, started promptly if/when dysphagia is identified; PRO-ACTIVE EAT, low intensity prophylactic intervention started before RT commences; or, PRO-ACTIVE EAT+EXERCISE, high intensity prophylactic intervention also started before RT commences. We hypothesize that the PRO-ACTIVE therapies are more effective than late RE-ACTIVE therapy; and, that the more intensive PRO-ACTIVE (EAT + EXERCISE) is superior to the low intensive PRO-ACTIVE (EAT). The primary endpoint of effectiveness is duration of feeding tube dependency one year post radiation therapy, selected as a pragmatic outcome valued equally by diverse stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers and clinicians). Secondary outcomes will include objective measures of swallow physiology and function, pneumonia and weight loss, along with various patient-reported swallowing-related outcomes, such as quality of life, symptom burden, and self-efficacy. DISCUSSION: Dysphagia is a common and potentially life-threatening chronic toxicity of radiotherapy, and a priority issue for HNC survivors. Yet, the optimal timing and intensity of swallowing therapy provided by a speech-language pathologist is not known. With no clearly preferred strategy, current practice is fraught with substantial variation. The pragmatic PRO-ACTIVE trial aims to specifically address the decisional dilemma of when swallowing therapy should begin (i.e., before or after a swallowing problem develops). The critical impact of this dilemma is heightened by the growing number of young HNC patients in healthcare systems that need to allocate resources most effectively. The results of the PRO-ACTIVE trial will address the global uncertainty regarding best practice for dysphagia management in HNC patients receiving radiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered with the US Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the PRO-ACTIVE trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, under the identifier NCT03455608; First posted: Mar 6, 2018; Last verified: Jun 17, 2021. Protocol Version: 1.3 (January 27, 2020). BioMed Central 2021-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8513207/ /pubmed/34645411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08826-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Martino, R.
Fitch, M. I.
Fuller, C. D.
Hope, A.
Krisciunas, G.
Langmore, S. E.
Lazarus, C.
Macdonald, C. L.
McCulloch, T.
Mills, G.
Palma, D. A.
Pytynia, K.
Ringash, J.
Sultanem, K.
Theurer, J.
Thorpe, K. E.
Hutcheson, K.
The PRO-ACTIVE trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
title The PRO-ACTIVE trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
title_full The PRO-ACTIVE trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
title_fullStr The PRO-ACTIVE trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
title_full_unstemmed The PRO-ACTIVE trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
title_short The PRO-ACTIVE trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
title_sort pro-active trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic swallow intervention for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513207/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34645411
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08826-0
work_keys_str_mv AT martinor theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT fitchmi theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT fullercd theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT hopea theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT krisciunasg theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT langmorese theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT lazarusc theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT macdonaldcl theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT mccullocht theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT millsg theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT palmada theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT pytyniak theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT ringashj theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT sultanemk theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT theurerj theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT thorpeke theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT hutchesonk theproactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT martinor proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT fitchmi proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT fullercd proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT hopea proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT krisciunasg proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT langmorese proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT lazarusc proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT macdonaldcl proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT mccullocht proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT millsg proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT palmada proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT pytyniak proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT ringashj proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT sultanemk proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT theurerj proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT thorpeke proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer
AT hutchesonk proactivetrialprotocolarandomizedstudycomparingtheeffectivenessofprophylacticswallowinterventionforpatientsreceivingradiotherapyforheadandneckcancer