search
Back to results

ELRR by TEM Versus Laparoscopic TME in iT2N0M0 SMALL LOW RECTAL CANCER (ELRRvsLTME)

Primary Purpose

Rectal Cancer

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 3
Locations
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
ELRR BY TEM
LTME
Sponsored by
University of Roma La Sapienza
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Rectal Cancer focused on measuring Rectal cancer, Radiochemotherapy, Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery, Laparoscopic Resection

Eligibility Criteria

undefined - undefined (Child, Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Tumor located within 6 cm from the anal verge
  • Tumor diameter not larger than 3 cm, and staged as iT2, N0, G1-2

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) 3 or 4

Sites / Locations

    Arms of the Study

    Arm 1

    Arm 2

    Arm Type

    Experimental

    Active Comparator

    Arm Label

    Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery

    Total Mesorectal Excision

    Arm Description

    Patients were treated by TEM as follows: mucosal incision included all the tatoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumor, according to its diameter before NT (ELRR- Endo Luminal Loco Regional Resection)

    Outcomes

    Primary Outcome Measures

    oncological result in term of local and/or systematic recurrence
    To evaluate local and/or systematic recurrence, all patients were followed up prospectively by clinical examination, measurement of tumour markers and sigmoidoscopy every 3 months for the first 3 years, and every 6 months thereafter. Whole-body CT and pelvic MRI were repeated every 6 months for the first 5 year. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 5 years.

    Secondary Outcome Measures

    Morbidity
    No. of patients with postoperative complications
    operative time
    operative time (minutes)
    blood loss
    blood loss (ml)
    analgesic use
    No. of patients receiving analgesia
    30 day mortality
    No. of patients died within 30 days from operation
    hospital stay
    hospital stay (days)
    cancer-related mortality
    No. of patients died for cancer. To evaluate local and/or systemic recurrence, all patients were followed up prospectively. After 5 year every 12 months. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 5 years

    Full Information

    First Posted
    September 15, 2011
    Last Updated
    May 29, 2012
    Sponsor
    University of Roma La Sapienza
    Collaborators
    Università Politecnica delle Marche
    search

    1. Study Identification

    Unique Protocol Identification Number
    NCT01609504
    Brief Title
    ELRR by TEM Versus Laparoscopic TME in iT2N0M0 SMALL LOW RECTAL CANCER
    Acronym
    ELRRvsLTME
    Official Title
    Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial: Endoluminal Loco-regional Resection (ELRR) by Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) in it2n0m0 Small Low Rectal Cancer
    Study Type
    Interventional

    2. Study Status

    Record Verification Date
    May 2012
    Overall Recruitment Status
    Completed
    Study Start Date
    April 1997 (undefined)
    Primary Completion Date
    April 2004 (Actual)
    Study Completion Date
    April 2004 (Actual)

    3. Sponsor/Collaborators

    Responsible Party, by Official Title
    Principal Investigator
    Name of the Sponsor
    University of Roma La Sapienza
    Collaborators
    Università Politecnica delle Marche

    4. Oversight

    Data Monitoring Committee
    No

    5. Study Description

    Brief Summary
    The present prospective randomized study investigated the results of ELRR (ENDOLUMINAL LOCO-REGIONAL RESECTION BY TRANSANAL ENDOSCOPIC MICROSURGERY) versus LTME (LAPAROSCOPIC TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION) in the management of 100 patients with iT2N0M0 small low rectal cancer after Neoadjuvant Treatment.
    Detailed Description
    From April 1997 to April 2004, patients with cT2 rectal cancer and no suspicion for positive lymph-nodes or distant metastases (cN0 M0) were enrolled in this study. History, routine laboratory tests including tumour markers, digital examination to evaluate tumour fixation and sphincter tone, clinical evaluation, were recorded for each patient in a data base. At admission, staging included: 1) endorectal ultrasound (EUS) 2) rigid rectoscopy and tumour biopsies; 3) total colonoscopy with vital dye staining of the rectum and 6-8 standard biopsies of normal mucosa at a distance of approximately 1 cm around the tumour with India ink tattooing of biopsy sites; 4) helical Total Body Computerized Tomography (CT), and 5) pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Rigid rectoscopy was performed in order to measure the exact distance of the tumour from the anal verge and to select the most appropriate patient's position on the operative table in case of TEM surgery. Positive lymph-node status at imaging was established according to the following criteria: at EUS, diameter > 0.8 cm, circular or irregular shape, hypervascularization at colour Doppler and hypoechogenicity. at CT and MRI, diameter of > 0.8 cm, circular or irregular shape. All patients with suspicious nodes or contradictory response at EUS, CT or MRI T staging were not enrolled in the present study. Inclusion criteria were: tumour located within 6 cm from the anal verge, tumour diameter not larger than 3 cm, and staged as cT2 N0 M0, G1-2. Patients classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) 3 or 4 were excluded. All patients underwent preoperative radiotherapy. The total dose given was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions over 5 weeks. The irradiated areas were: anus, rectum, mesorectum, regional and iliac lymph-nodes. Continuous infusion of 5-FU 200 mg/m2/day was performed during radiotherapy treatment. Forty days after the end of NT, staging as described above (except for total colonoscopy) was repeated. Downsizing was classified in two groups: patients with tumour mass reduction more than 50% (responders) and patients with tumour mass reduction less than 50% (low or non responders). According to the study protocol, patients with disease progression were excluded. Randomization was performed the day before operation. Patients were stratified in two groups and subsequently allocated 1:1 to the two arms of the study, ELRR by TEM (arm A) or LTME (arm B) by means of sealed opaque envelopes containing computer-generated random numbers. In the end, 50 patients underwent ELRR by TEM (arm A) and 50 patients underwent laparoscopic resection (LTME) (laparoscopic low anterior resection or abdominal-perineal resection) (arm B). The recruitment was interrupted when 100 patients had undergone operation. Surgery was performed between 45 and 55 days after the end of radio-chemotherapy. Preoperative washout of the colon (polyethyleneglycol) and short-term antibiotic prophylaxis (metronidazole and second generation cephalosporin) were administered to all patients. Surgical procedures were performed only by two surgeons expert in open rectal surgery and skilled in both laparoscopic and TEM procedures. TEM procedures were performed with the Wolf Company (Tuttlingen, Germany) instrumentation. The surgical technique of ELRR was as follows: mucosal incision included all the tattoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumour, according to its diameter before NT. Starting from the mucosal incision the dissection was continued deeply in order to remove all the mesorectum adjacent to the tumour, following a cutting line with an angle of approximatively 120-135° with respect to the mucosal plane. For posterior and lateral lesions the bottom dissection plane was carried down to the "holy plane" and for anterior lesions to the level of the vagina septum or the prostatic capsule. In case of tumour with the distal limit at the level of the anal canal, the incision included the dentate line and the internal sphincter fibres were partially removed. For distal tumours, in order to maintain the CO2 rectum insufflation it is recommended to adjust the rectoscope axis so as to keep its inferior circumference adherent to the anal canal. In all patients the defect was closed by multiple running stitches, according to the technique described by Buess. The surgical technique of Arm B was laparoscopic low anterior resection or abdominal perineal resection. Primary endpoint in this study was the oncological result in terms of local recurrence, distant metastases and cancer related mortality with minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Secondary endpoints were: operative time, blood loss, analgesic use, morbidity, hospital stay and 30 day mortality. Major morbidity was defined as complications requiring surgical treatment. In order to evaluate local and/or systemic recurrence, all patients were prospectively followed-up by clinical examination, tumour markers' assay and rectoscopy every 3 months for the first 3 years, then every six months. Total body CT, and pelvic MRI were repeated every 6 months for the first 5 years. According to the study protocol, no adjuvant therapy was administered, as recommended by the consultant oncologist in T2N0 rectal cancer patients.

    6. Conditions and Keywords

    Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
    Rectal Cancer
    Keywords
    Rectal cancer, Radiochemotherapy, Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery, Laparoscopic Resection

    7. Study Design

    Primary Purpose
    Treatment
    Study Phase
    Phase 3
    Interventional Study Model
    Parallel Assignment
    Masking
    None (Open Label)
    Allocation
    Randomized
    Enrollment
    283 (Actual)

    8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

    Arm Title
    Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery
    Arm Type
    Experimental
    Arm Description
    Patients were treated by TEM as follows: mucosal incision included all the tatoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumor, according to its diameter before NT (ELRR- Endo Luminal Loco Regional Resection)
    Arm Title
    Total Mesorectal Excision
    Arm Type
    Active Comparator
    Intervention Type
    Procedure
    Intervention Name(s)
    ELRR BY TEM
    Other Intervention Name(s)
    FULL-THICKNESS + FAT EXCISION BY TEM
    Intervention Description
    The surgical technique of ELRR was as follows: mucosal incision included all the tatoo spots performed at admission staging, in order to excise a minimum of 1 cm of normal mucosa around the tumor, according to its diameter before NT
    Intervention Type
    Procedure
    Intervention Name(s)
    LTME
    Other Intervention Name(s)
    LAPAROSCOPIC LOW ANTERIOR/ABDOMINO-PERINEAL RESECTION
    Intervention Description
    LAPAROSCOPIC TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION INCLUDING MESORECTAL (ACCORDING TO HEALD CRITERIA)
    Primary Outcome Measure Information:
    Title
    oncological result in term of local and/or systematic recurrence
    Description
    To evaluate local and/or systematic recurrence, all patients were followed up prospectively by clinical examination, measurement of tumour markers and sigmoidoscopy every 3 months for the first 3 years, and every 6 months thereafter. Whole-body CT and pelvic MRI were repeated every 6 months for the first 5 year. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 5 years.
    Time Frame
    3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60 months after operation
    Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
    Title
    Morbidity
    Description
    No. of patients with postoperative complications
    Time Frame
    participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 3 and 6 days each group
    Title
    operative time
    Description
    operative time (minutes)
    Time Frame
    operative time
    Title
    blood loss
    Description
    blood loss (ml)
    Time Frame
    during time of operation
    Title
    analgesic use
    Description
    No. of patients receiving analgesia
    Time Frame
    participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 3 and 6 days each group
    Title
    30 day mortality
    Description
    No. of patients died within 30 days from operation
    Time Frame
    at 30 days from operation
    Title
    hospital stay
    Description
    hospital stay (days)
    Time Frame
    participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 3 and 6 days each group
    Title
    cancer-related mortality
    Description
    No. of patients died for cancer. To evaluate local and/or systemic recurrence, all patients were followed up prospectively. After 5 year every 12 months. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 5 years
    Time Frame
    3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60 months after operation

    10. Eligibility

    Sex
    All
    Accepts Healthy Volunteers
    No
    Eligibility Criteria
    Inclusion Criteria: Tumor located within 6 cm from the anal verge Tumor diameter not larger than 3 cm, and staged as iT2, N0, G1-2 Exclusion Criteria: Patients classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) 3 or 4
    Overall Study Officials:
    First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
    Emanuele Lezoche, Pr
    Organizational Affiliation
    university Sapienza of Rome, Italy
    Official's Role
    Principal Investigator

    12. IPD Sharing Statement

    Citations:
    PubMed Identifier
    22864880
    Citation
    Lezoche E, Baldarelli M, Lezoche G, Paganini AM, Gesuita R, Guerrieri M. Randomized clinical trial of endoluminal locoregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Br J Surg. 2012 Sep;99(9):1211-8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8821.
    Results Reference
    derived

    Learn more about this trial

    ELRR by TEM Versus Laparoscopic TME in iT2N0M0 SMALL LOW RECTAL CANCER

    We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs