Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 11:42 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-25 @ 9:34 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01730651
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2020-09-16
First Post:
2012-10-15
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in the Cervical Cancer With Metastatic Lymphadenopathies.
Sponsor:
National Cancer Center, Korea
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Phase II Study of High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in the Cervical Cancer With Metastatic Lymphadenopathies at Initial Diagnosis.
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2020-09
Last Known Status:
ACTIVE_NOT_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:
This phase II study of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy in the cervical cancer with metastatic lymphadenopathies at initial diagnosis
Detailed Description:
Lymph node (LN) involvement in cervical cancer is a poor prognostic factor(1). Although lymph node evaluation is not a part of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system(2), it is generally performed as one of the initial workup of patients with cervical cancer by use of modern imaging tools for accurate evaluation of the disease extent and possible treatment adjustment. Kidd et al reported the positron emission tomography with \[18F\] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET)-positive lymph node rate is 47% at diagnosis in 560 patients. They also showed that within a stage, patients with PET-positive lymph nodes had significantly worse disease specific survival than those with PET-negative lymph nodes (p\<0.001)(3).
Historically, dose escalation to the pelvic or para-aortic metastatic lymphadenopathies was not given as much attention as primary uterine cervical lesion partly because of the expected increased risk of bowel toxicity with when conventional radiotherapy technique was used. Unlike for the head and neck cancer where intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or tomotherapy was actively used for treatment of large lymphadenopathies and shown to produce improved disease control(4, 5) , there are few similar studies for cervical cancer. It is well known that more than 60 Gy10 2Gy equivalent dose (EQD2, α/β=10 Gy) is needed to control the gross tumor sized of 10 mm, containing 109 cells, according to the logarithmic cell killing(6). Theoretically, pelvic and para-aortic LNs (PAN) could not be controlled with the dose of 45-50 Gy10 EQD2, and we need to escalate the dose as much as possible with new radiation technology.
In the current is study, we evaluate the LNs control rate, toxicity rate, progression-free survival and overall survival in cervical cancer patients with lymphadenopathies and treated with high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy
Historically, dose escalation to the pelvic or para-aortic metastatic lymphadenopathies was not given as much attention as primary uterine cervical lesion partly because of the expected increased risk of bowel toxicity with when conventional radiotherapy technique was used. Unlike for the head and neck cancer where intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or tomotherapy was actively used for treatment of large lymphadenopathies and shown to produce improved disease control(4, 5) , there are few similar studies for cervical cancer. It is well known that more than 60 Gy10 2Gy equivalent dose (EQD2, α/β=10 Gy) is needed to control the gross tumor sized of 10 mm, containing 109 cells, according to the logarithmic cell killing(6). Theoretically, pelvic and para-aortic LNs (PAN) could not be controlled with the dose of 45-50 Gy10 EQD2, and we need to escalate the dose as much as possible with new radiation technology.
In the current is study, we evaluate the LNs control rate, toxicity rate, progression-free survival and overall survival in cervical cancer patients with lymphadenopathies and treated with high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: