Clinical trial NCT05731791: Trial to Compare MRI-guided Precision Prone Irradiation (PPI) Versus CT-guided Breast Irradiation
Official title: A Prospective Randomized Trial to Compare MRI-guided Precision Prone Irradiation (PPI) Versus CT-guided Breast Irradiation
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Phase: NA
Conditions: Breast Cancer
Lead sponsor: Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2023-02-16
Enrollment: 17
Sex: FEMALE
Minimum age (years): 50
Maximum age (years): 90
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: Phase 3 two-armed randomized clinical trial for localized favorable breast cancer patients, randomizing to CT-based radiation treatment vs. MRI-based radiation treatment
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: The Investigators are investigating the potential role of MRI-guided Radiation Therapy for patients receiving breast radiotherapy in the prone position with a MRI-Linac radiotherapy system, the Precision Prone Irradiation (PPI) technique.

Hypothesis: The investigators would like to hypothesize that breast radiation therapy using MRI-guided system including the MRI-Linac (Arm 2) is comparable to the current standard of treatment using conventional CT-based system (Arm 1), in terms of local control of the disease at 2 year time point.

Detailed description: Breast conserving surgery and adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy is a standard treatment option for most patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer. Recent technological advances in radiotherapy have enabled shorter treatment courses, smaller radiation fields, prone positioning, and fewer side effects associated with breast cancer treatment. To further improve target accuracy in breast radiation delivery, an emerging radiotherapy technology takes advantage of on-table MRI imaging and daily adaptive planning during the radiation delivery process.

The objectives of the study are to compare side effects in patients treated under either of these treatment settings and to compare recurrence (if the cancer comes back) rates at a 2-year time point. Patients will have annual follow ups up to 10 years and recurrence rates will be measured at 5-year and at 10-year time points.

Eligibility criteria: Patients ≥ 50 yrs with histologically confirmed unilateral DCIS or Stage I invasive breast cancer; received breast conserving surgery (pN0 or pNx) with tumor pathology ≤ 2 cm and excision margin ≥ 1 mm

Inclusion Criteria:

* Women status post segmental mastectomy
* If unilateral, pT1 breast cancer excised with negative margins AND/OR pTis excised with negative margins.
* If bilateral, pT1 breast cancer excised with negative margins AND/OR pTis excised with negative margins.
* Clinically N0 or pN0 or sentinel node negative
* Ductal carcinoma in situ DCIS with negative margins (no DCIS on inked margins).

Exclusion Criteria:

* Previous radiation therapy to the ipsilateral breast.
* \> 90 days from last surgery, unless s/p adjuvant chemotherapy
* \> 60 days from last chemotherapy
* Patients unable to tolerate MRI or are otherwise unsuitable for MRI-based RT treatment
* Metastatic disease

Primary outcomes:
measure: Comparing local recurrence rates between patients receiving Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 24months
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Comparing local recurrence rates between patients receiving Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 60 months
measure: Comparing number of participants with local recurrence between patients treated on Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 120 months
measure: Comparing clinical and planning target volumes (CTV and PTV volumes) for CT-based planning vs. MRI-based planning
timeFrame: 60 months
measure: Comparing patient reported cosmetic outcomes between patients treated on Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 60 months
measure: Comparing the number of treatment related acute skin toxicities observed in patients who received either Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 6 months
measure: Comparing the number of treatment related acute skin toxicities observed in patients who received either Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 12 months
measure: Comparing the number of treatment related acute skin toxicities observed in patients who received either Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 24 months
measure: Comparing the number of treatment related late skin toxicities who received either Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 6 months
measure: Comparing the number of treatment related late skin toxicities who received either Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 12 months
measure: Comparing the number of treatment related late skin toxicities who received either Standard CT radiation therapy (ARM1) and MRI-based radiation therapy (ARM 2)
timeFrame: 24 months
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: New York
country: United States
facility: Weill Cornell Medicine
state: New York
Study officials:
affiliation: Weill Medical College of Cornell University
name: John Ng, M.D.
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References: