Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 2:11 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-27 @ 6:54 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04498260
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2020-08-04
First Post:
2019-01-30
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Intralesional Steroid Injection Versus Oral Prednisolone in Prevention of Esophageal Stricture
Sponsor:
Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Prospective, Randomized Trial of Intralesional Steroid Injection Versus Oral Prednisolone in Prevention of Esophageal Stricture After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2020-02
Last Known Status:
RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Endoscopic resection of superficial esophageal neoplasms is already a reality and presents important advantages when compared to esophagectomy as fewer complications and better quality of life. However, extensive resections can lead to difficult-to-manage stenoses. There are several therapies available in order to prevent this stenosis but, to date, there is no definition of the gold standard.
The objective of this study was to compare the use of intralesional steroid injection versus oral prednisolone after endoscopic submucosal dissection and to evaluate the stenosis rate, number of dilations to resolve the stenosis and complications.
The objective of this study was to compare the use of intralesional steroid injection versus oral prednisolone after endoscopic submucosal dissection and to evaluate the stenosis rate, number of dilations to resolve the stenosis and complications.
Detailed Description:
Endoscopic resection of superficial esophageal neoplasms is widely used as an alternative to esophagectomy, since it is less invasive, besides presenting good clinical results. Compared with esophagectomy, patients submitted to endoscopic resection present shorter hospitalization time, lower incidence of complications and better quality of life in the long term.
However, repair of esophageal ulcer, caused by endoscopic resection, which occupies three quarters or more of the circumference of the organ, can result in the formation of stenosis.
In the past, there was no consensus on the use of preventive therapies for esophageal stenosis after extensive ESD. However, Oliveira et al recently demonstrated through systematic review and meta-analysis that the use of these therapies reduces the rate of stenosis (40% on average), decreased the number of dilations to resolve the stenosis (8 sessions less ), Without altering the number of complications.
Theoretically, corticosteroids are the most appropriate choice due to their mechanism of action, modulating wound healing by preventing inflammation, by reducing prolyl hydroxylase, which helps reduce collagen production.
However, treatment with corticosteroids, especially at high oral doses, can cause several adverse effects, such as immunosuppression, diabetes, psychiatric disorders, osteoporosis, optic lesion and peptic ulcer. Thus, the use of local corticosteroid injection could minimize these side effects. However, local injection implies risks of bleeding and perforation, and is of limited use in patients receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.
The objective of this study was to compare the local corticosteroid injection and the use of oral corticosteroids to prevent stenosis after extensive submucosal endoscopic resection of superficial esophageal carcinoma, in relation to the stenosis rate, number of dilations necessary to resolve the stenosis and frequency of complications.
However, repair of esophageal ulcer, caused by endoscopic resection, which occupies three quarters or more of the circumference of the organ, can result in the formation of stenosis.
In the past, there was no consensus on the use of preventive therapies for esophageal stenosis after extensive ESD. However, Oliveira et al recently demonstrated through systematic review and meta-analysis that the use of these therapies reduces the rate of stenosis (40% on average), decreased the number of dilations to resolve the stenosis (8 sessions less ), Without altering the number of complications.
Theoretically, corticosteroids are the most appropriate choice due to their mechanism of action, modulating wound healing by preventing inflammation, by reducing prolyl hydroxylase, which helps reduce collagen production.
However, treatment with corticosteroids, especially at high oral doses, can cause several adverse effects, such as immunosuppression, diabetes, psychiatric disorders, osteoporosis, optic lesion and peptic ulcer. Thus, the use of local corticosteroid injection could minimize these side effects. However, local injection implies risks of bleeding and perforation, and is of limited use in patients receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.
The objective of this study was to compare the local corticosteroid injection and the use of oral corticosteroids to prevent stenosis after extensive submucosal endoscopic resection of superficial esophageal carcinoma, in relation to the stenosis rate, number of dilations necessary to resolve the stenosis and frequency of complications.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
False
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: