scholarly journals Radiation therapy alone versus radiation therapy plus radiofrequency ablation/vertebral augmentation for spine metastasis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rupesh Kotecha ◽  
Brian J. Schiro ◽  
Justin Sporrer ◽  
Muni Rubens ◽  
Haley R. Appel ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Spine metastasis is a common occurrence in cancer patients and results in pain, neurologic deficits, decline in performance status, disability, inferior quality of life (QOL), and reduction in ability to receive cancer-directed therapies. Conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is associated with modest rates of pain relief, high rates of disease recurrence, low response rates for those with radioresistant histologies, and limited improvement in neurologic deficits. The addition of radiofrequency ablation/percutaneous vertebral augmentation (RFA/PVA) to index sites together with EBRT may improve pain response rates and corresponding quality of life. Methods/design This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in patients with spine metastasis from T5-L5, stratified according to tumor type (radioresistant vs. radiosensitive) in which patients in each stratum will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either RFA/PVA and EBRT or EBRT alone. All patients will be treated with EBRT to a dose of 20–30 Gy in 5–10 fractions. The target parameters will be measured and recorded at the baseline clinic visit, and daily at home with collection of weekly measurements at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after treatment, and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months following treatment with imaging and QOL assessments. Discussion The primary objective of this randomized trial is to determine whether RFA/PVA in addition to EBRT improves pain control compared to palliative EBRT alone for patients with spine metastasis, defined as complete or partial pain relief (measured using the Numerical Rating Pain Scale [NRPS]) at 3 months. Secondary objectives include determining whether combined modality treatment improves the rapidity of pain response, duration of pain response, patient reported pain impact, health utility, and overall QOL. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04375891. Registered on 5 May 2020.

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 380-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Morrison ◽  
Raghu Kolluri ◽  
Michael Vasquez ◽  
Monte Madsen ◽  
Andrew Jones ◽  
...  

Objective To evaluate the 36-month efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate closure for the treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins in comparison with radiofrequency ablation. Methods In this multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial, 222 symptomatic subjects with incompetent great saphenous veins were assigned to either cyanoacrylate closure or radiofrequency ablation. The primary endpoint, complete closure of the target great saphenous vein, was determined using duplex ultrasound examination starting from three-month visit. Results At month 36, the great saphenous vein closure rates were 94.4% for the cyanoacrylate closure group and 91.9% for the radiofrequency ablation group. Stable improvement in symptoms and quality of life was observed in both groups. Adverse event rates between the 24- and 36-month visits were similar between the groups as were serious adverse events which were infrequent and judged unrelated to either the device or the procedure in both groups. Conclusions This trial continues to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of cyanoacrylate closure for the treatment of great saphenous vein incompetence with great saphenous vein closure rate at 36 months similar to that of radiofrequency ablation, indicating non-inferiority of cyanoacrylate closure to radiofrequency ablation. The improvement in quality of life outcomes were also sustained and similar between the two treatment groups.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document