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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |