Version of 3 March
2003
Role of hyperbaric oxygen in enhancing
radiosensitivity on glioblastoma multiforme.
A randomised controlled prospective study
COST action B14
This
protocol has been adopted by the Working Group Oncology of COST action B14.
Protocol coordinator:
Writing committee:
1.
F. Fehlauer, M.D.
2.
U.M. Carl M.D.
Ph. D
3.
P. Sminia, Ph.
D
1.
Dept. Radiation Oncology, University of Hamburg, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg,
Germany. Phone:+ 49-40-42803-2525, Fax:+ 49-40-42803-8119, e-mail: fehlauer@uke.uni-hamburg.de
2.
Dept. Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Diakoniekrankenhaus
Rotenburg, Elise-Averdieck Strasse 17, 27356 Rotenburg (Wümme), Germany. Phone:+ 49 -4261/77-2741; Fax: 04261/77-2148 e-mail: UMCARL@diako-online.de
3.
Dept. Radiation Oncology, section Radiobiology, VU Universtity medical
center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Phone: + 31 20 4448355,, Fax:+ 31 20 4448285, E-mail: p.sminial@vumc.nl
“This protocol has been considered in detail, and
accepted by COSTB14. This is a multi-national group of experts in the field of
Hyperbaric Medicine, appointed nationally in each individual case, and
organised and supported by the European Commission. Thus, the work described
has been subjected to extensive peer review and amendment, and may be regarded
as consistent with best practice in the field of Hyperbaric Medicine”
COST B14 Working Group Oncology:
CARL Ulrich M GERMANY
HAMILTON-FARRELL Martin UNITED KINGDOM
HARTMANN Axel GERMANY
JANSEN
Erik C DENMARK
MAYER Ramona AUSTRIA
MELAMED Yehuda ISRAEL
SCHMUTZ Jorg SWITZERLAND
SICKO Zdzislaw POLAND
SMINIA Peter THE
NETHERLANDS
VAN DER KLEIJ Adrian THE NETHERLANDS
1.
Background
Malignant gliomas, such as
glioblastoma multiforme, are the most common type of primary brain tumours of
the central nervous system and remain incurable. The efficacy of surgical
resection, radiotherapy and chemotherapy seems to have reached a plateau. In spite of the benefit of postoperative radiotherapy,
the mean survival is less than 12 months.
One of the major
factors of the poor response to therapy is the tumour cell heterogeneity
containing oxygen deprived tumour areas (Vaupel 1991, Denekamp 1996). It has
been long recognised that oxygenation influences the response of tumours to
radiation and may led to radioresistance. For
sterilisation of hypoxic tumour cells, a three times higher radiation dose is
required than for cells at normal oxygen tension. Recently, Collingridge et al.
(1999) quantified the spatial distribution of the oxygen pressure (pO2) in
glioma by polarographic measurements. The study showed regions with oxygen
tension less than 2.5 mm Hg. Hence, hyperbaric oxygenation (HBO) is a promising
approach to cope with the phenomenon of hypoxia and to increase the cellular
radiation sensitivity (Nordmarks 1996, Overgaard 1996).
The theoretical basis for
the use of HBO as an adjunct to radiotherapy is as follows:
·
Hypoxic regions are present in malignant
gliomas.
·
Non-proliferating, quiescent hypoxic
cells are radioresistant compared to their well-oxygenated counterparts.
Following irradiation, well-oxygenated cells will be lethally damaged. As a
result, hypoxic cells will be reoxygenated, enter the proliferative tumour cell
compartment and repopulate the tumour.
·
The larger the number of cells that lose
their reproductive capacity, the greater the probability of palliation.
Several
experimental studies indicated that the radiation response can be enhanced
under HBO (Johnson 1978, Brizel 1997, Hartmann 1997). Hyperbaric oxygen
exposure was used in combination with radiotherapy to treat malignant gliomas
(Kohshi 1999). Fifteen patients (10 glioblastoma, 5 anaplastic astrocytoma)
were irradiated within 15 minutes after HBO. The median survivals in patients
with and without HBO were 24 and 12 months, respectively, and were significant
different. No serious side effects were observed in HBO patients. However, a
major drawback of this promising non-randomised study presents the concurrence
of patients with two pognostically different tumours.
2. Objectives
Main
endpoint:
·
Efficiency on median survival of HBO prior to
conventional radiation
Secondary endpoints:
·
Efficiency on recurrent free survival of HBO before
conventional radiation
·
PET study to assess metabolic changes before and
after therapy (optional)
·
Influence on quality of life
3.
Study population
Inclusion criteria:
·
Pathologically verified glioblastoma multiforme
·
Complete or partial macroscopic surgical resection,
or biopsy only
·
Karnofsky status ³ 70%
·
Leucocytes ³ 3000
·
Thrombocytes ³ 100.000
·
Hemoglobin ³ 10 g/dl
·
HBO fitness
·
Informed consent
Exclusion criteria before
therapy:
·
Age < 18 years
·
Karnofsky status < 70%
·
Prior chemotherapy
·
Prior brain irradiation
·
Pregnancy
·
Secondary malignancies, except squamous cell
carcinoma of the skin.
·
Severe internal or neurological disease
·
Contraindications to HBO: as assessed by the medical
direction of the HBO facility.
Breaking off
criteria / exclusion criteria during therapy:
·
Severe side effects (WHO III-IV)
·
Lacking concordance
In these cases,
patients will be treated following the conventional radiotherapy protocol.
4.
Sample size
assumptions and estimates
Phase III trial: -
prospective, randomised, unblinded
·
Sample size: 40 patients each group
5.
Enrolment of
participants
5.a. Baseline examinations
Clinical examination:
General clinical examination, including neurological status and
Karnofsky performance status. CTC status (common toxicity criteria).
HBO fitness examination:
According to the regulations
of the medical director.
Laboratory investigations:
Blood cell count,
Hematocrit, Na, K, Cl, Creatinin.
Preclinical examination:
Contrast-enhanced
computerised tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.
Optional: PET scan (FDG uptake).
These methods are used to
evaluate the tumour volume before and after treatment.
5.b.Personal data:
Age, date of diagnosis,
tumour localisation, operation status (complete macroscopical resection,
partial resection, or biopsy only).
Subjective evaluation:
Quality of life questionnaire.
6.
Randomisation
(Phase III)
After informed consent,
patients will be randomised into two arms (A: with or B: without HBO; the
irradiation treatment is identical in both groups) using a blinded envelope
technique, consisting of a choice of 1 to 10 envelopes (5 containing a piece of
paper indicating `HBO`). Every patient will be presented 10 envelopes, in order
to give every patient a 50% probability of HBO.
7.
Intervention
Radiotherapy must begin within three
weeks after surgery.
Procedure: Three-dimensional
treatment planning aiming for application of 60 Gy tumour dose in daily
fractions of max. 2 Gy. Overall treatment time: 6-7 weeks.
Arm A patients will receive HBO
before irradiation. At least 80% of the irradiation fractions should be
preceded by HBO.
·
each irradiation must be given within 20 min. of HBO
treatment.
·
all irradiation fractions should be preceded by HBO
treatment at 2.5 (2.4-2.6) (to be specified exactly) ATA for 60 min. without
air breaks.
Transcutaneous
oxygen measurements will be done to confirm hyperoxygenation.
Patients
should be transported from the HBO facility to the X-ray machine without
excersion. The time interval between HBO treatment and radiotherapy must be
recorded.
Arm B patients will not be
submitted to (sham) compression.
8.
Blinding
Presence of complications
and side effects will independently be recorded be a clinician treating the
patient, and analysed by a researcher unaware of the nature of the treatment
given.
9.
Evaluation
criteria
Evaluation of the patients
will be performed on coded evaluation record, devoid of any possible
identification of the patient.
Evaluation will be done on
Day 0 (before start of the treatment, during radiation planning), Week 1 – 6
(once a week during treatment period), Day X (end of treatment), Months 3 (3 month
after start of the treatment).
Each set of evaluation will
be documented on standardised tables, which allow analysis for comparison and
will comprise:
Day 0: Clinical examination
(general clinical examination, including neurological status and Karnofsky
performance status; CTC status)
Week 1 – 6: Clinical
examination, laboratory investigations (blood cell count, hematocrit, Na, K,
Cl, creatinin)
Day X: Clinical examination,
laboratory investigations, quality of live questionnaire (Phase III)
Months 3: Clinical
examination, laboratory investigations, contrast-enhanced computerised
tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, quality of live
questionnaire (Phase III)
10.
Data and
statistical analysis
Patients' recurrence free survival will be assessed by
clinical monitoring. The individual survival time will be evaluated by
contacting treating clinician, general practicians and local registry office.
Statistical tests will be
performed two years after the last patient has entered the study:
The differences in patients
characteristics and treatment parameters between the treated group with or
without HBO will be investigated using the student`s t-test or chi-square-test.
Survival curves will be calculated using the Kaplan-Meyer method. Differences
in survival curves will be determined using the log-rang test. The Cox
proportional hazard model will be used to calculate the relative risk on each
variable for survival. Results will be considered significant for p-values
<0.05.
The time interval between
HBO treatment and radiotherapy will be recorded.
11.
References
Brizel DM, Hage WD, Dodge RK, Munley
MT, Piantadosi CA, Dewhirst MW: Hyperbaric oxygen improves tumour radiation
response significantly more than carbogen/nicotinamide.
Rad Res 1997;147:715-720
Collingridge DR,
Piepmeier JM, Rockwell S, Knisely JP: Polarographic measurements of oxygen
tension in human glioma and surrounding peritumoural brain tissue. Radiother
Oncol. 1999;53(2):127-31.
Denekamp J, Waites A: The potential for improving radiotherapy outcome
by improving the oxygen
supply to solid tumours. Strahlenther Onkol 1996;172(S2):22-23
Hartmann KA, vd Kleij AJ, Schneider
CJ, Sminia P: Is hyperbaric oxygen more effective than carbigen/nicotinamide in
tumour radiation response? Rad Res 1997;148:523-524
Johnson R, Philips TL, Wassermann
TH, Gomer CJ, Lawrence GA, Levine ML, Sadee W, Pentra JS, Rubin DJ: The hypoxic
cell sensetizer program in the United States. Br J Cancer 1978;37:276
Kohshi K, Kinoshita Y, Imada H,
Kunugita N, Abe H, Terashima, Tokui N, Uemura S: Effects of radiotherapy after
hyperbaric oxygenation on maligant gliomas. Br J Cancer 1999;80:236-241
Nordmarks M, Overgaard M, Overgaard
J: Pretreatment oxygenation predicts radiation response in advanced squamous
cell carcinoma of head and neck. Radiother Oncol 1996;41:31-39
Overgaard J, Horsman MR:
Modification of hypoxia-induced radioresistance in tumors by the use of oxygen
and senzitisers. Sem Radiat Oncol 1996;6:10-21
Patient report protocol 01 (this space for study centre only)
Centre code Patient code Date
Role of hyperbaric oxygen in enhancing
radiosensitivity on glioblastoma multiforme
Dear patient,
you may wish to participate in a study which is being conducted to
evaluate if hyperbaric
oxygen delivered before conventional radiotherapy affects the outcome.
Oxygen has in experimental studies been shown to enhance radiotherapy
efficiency.
If you accept to participate in the study, you will be selected to
participate either in a group of patients who will be given hyperbaric oxygen
therapy before radiotherapy or in a group of patients will have no special
treatment before each irradiation.
Hyperbaric oxygen treatment will mean 30 treatments in a chamber
compressed with air. Each treatment takes approximately two hours and will be
conducted at the hyperbaric chamber nearest to where you live.
If you accept to participate, and if you are selected
for hyperbaric oxygen treatment, you will called to the hyperbaric chamber for
practical information of how the treatment will be conducted, and an individual
treatment plan for you will be put forward.
Participation in the study is voluntary and can be
stopped whenever you wish without giving any reason.
I have read the above information, understood the
content and accept to participate in the study.
Place…………………………………..Date…………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
Signature
Name
01.08 Short-Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey
Overview:
The Short-Form-36
(SF-36) Health Survey was developed by Dr John Ware and was derived from the
Rand Corporation's Medical Outcomes Study (MOS). It is used as a general survey
of health status and an outcome measure in clinical practice. It can also be
used together with disease-specific instruments for patient evaluation. The
survey may be self-administered or may be completed by an interviewer.
Instructions for self-administration
This survey asks for your views
about your health. This information will help keep track of how you feel and
how well you are able to do your usual activities. Answer every question by
marking the answer as indicated. If you are unsure about how to answer a
question, please give the best answer you can.
1. In general would you say your
health is:
• excellent [1]
• very good [2]
• good [3]
• fair [4]
• poor [5]
2. Compared to one year ago, how
would you rate your health in general now?
• much better now than one year ago [1]
• somewhat better now than one year ago [2]
• about the same now as one year ago [3]
• somewhat worse now than one year ago [4]
• much worse now than one year ago [5]
3. The following items are about
activities you might do during a typical day. Does your health now limit you in
these activities? If so, how
much?
a. Vigorous activities, such as running, lifting heavy objects,
participating in strenuous sports.
b. Moderate activities, such as moving a table, pushing a vacuum
cleaner, bowling, or playing golf.
c. Lifting or carrying groceries.
d. Climbing several flights of stairs.
e. Climbing one flight of stairs.
f. Bending, kneeling, or stooping.
g. Walking more than one mile.
h. Walking several blocks.
i. Bathing or dressing yourself.
Responses
• Yes, limited a lot [1]
• Yes, limited a little [2]
• No, not limited at all [3]
4. During the past 4 weeks, have you
had any of the following problems with your work or other regular daily
activities as a result of your physical
health?
a. Cut down on the amount of time you spent on work or other activities.
b. Accomplished less than you would like.
c. Were limited in the kind of work or other activities.
d. Had difficulty performing the work or other activities (for example,
it took extra effort).
Responses
• Yes [1]
• No [2]
5. During the past 4 weeks, have you
had any of the following problems with your work or other regular activities as
a result of any emotional problems (such as feeling depressed or anxious)?
a. Cut down on the amount of time you spent on work or other activities.
b. Accomplished less than you would like.
c. Didn't do work or other activities as carefully as usual.
Responses
• Yes [1]
• No [2]
6. During the past 4 weeks, to what
extent has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with your
normal social activities with family, friends, neighbours, or groups?
• not at all [1]
• slightly [2]
• moderately [3]
• quite a bit [4]
• extremely [5]
7. How much bodily pain have you had
during the past 4 weeks?
• none [1]
• very mild [2]
• mild [3]
• moderate [4]
• severe [5]
• very severe [6]
8. During the past 4 weeks, how much
did pain interfere with your normal work (including both work outside the home
and housework)?
• not at all [1]
• a little bit [2]
• moderately [3]
• quite a bit [4]
• extremely [5]
9. These questions are about how you
feel and how things have been with you during the past 4 weeks. For each
question, please give the one answer that comes closest to the way you have
been feeling. How much of the time during the past 4 weeks:
a. Did you feel full of pep?
b. Have you been a very nervous person?
c. Have you felt so down in the dumps that nothing could cheer you up?
d. Have you felt calm and peaceful?
e. Did you have a lot of energy?
f. Have you felt downhearted and blue?
g. Did you feel worn out?
h. Have you been a happy person?
i. Did you feel tired?
Responses:
• all of the time [1]
• most of the time [2]
• a good bit of the time [3]
• some of the time [4]
• a little of the time [5]
• none of the time [6]
10. During the past 4 weeks, how
much of the time has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with
your social activities (like visiting with friends, relatives, etc.)?
• all of the time [1]
• most of the time [2]
• some of the time [3]
• a little of the time [4]
• none of the time [5]
11. How TRUE or FALSE is each of the
following statements for you?
a. I seem to get sick a little easier than other people.
b. I am as healthy as anybody I know.
c. I expect my health to get worse.
d. My health is excellent.
Responses
• definitely true [1]
• mostly true [2]
• don't know [3]
• mostly false [4]
• definitely false [5]
Interpretation
Responses to 35 of the questions are
divided into 8 "dimensions", while the response to question 2 indicates
the change in health over the past year. A more favorable response is assigned
a higher score.
Dimensions No Items
Physical
functioning 10
3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e,
3f, 3g ,3h, 3i, 3j
Role
limitations 4 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d
Bodily
pain 2 7, 8
Social
functioning 2 6, 10
General mental
health 5 9b, 9c, 9d, 9f, 9h
Role
limitations due to
emotional
problems 3 5a, 5b, 5c
Vitality,
energy or fatigue 4 9a, 9e, 9g, 9i
General health
perceptions 5 1, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d
Rand approach to scoring
• each response to a question
converted to a 0-100 value, with a higher score indicating a more favorable
state
• the responses in each dimension
are averaged to generate a response from 0 to 100
• 3 response scale: 0, 50, 100
• 5 response scale: 0, 25, 50, 75, 100
• 6 response scale: 0, 20, 40, 60,
80, 100
• if a question is not answered,
then it is ignored
Recommended scoring
• described in the SF-36 manual
• somewhat complex
• computer-based scoring available
from Response Technologies, Inc (see below)
Supplemental Information
Variant forms available
• acute version referenced to the
past week
• knee replacement version
Addresses for additional information
(1) printed forms: The Medical
Outcomes Trust, PO Box 1917, Boston, MA. 02205
(2) technical information: SF-36
Health Survey, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center Hospitals, Box
345, 750 Washington Street, Boston, MA, 02111
(3) computerized scoring system:
Response Technologies, Inc., 3399 South County Trail, East Greenwich, RI, 02818
References
Lanksy D, Butler JBV, Waller FT.
Using health status measures in the hospital setting. 1992; 30: MS57-MS73.
McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring
Health - A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires, Second Edition. Oxford
Press. 1996. pages
446-456.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS
36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Medical Care. 1992; 30: 473-483.
Patients report protocol Instiution: date:
Please tick: before O during
O after O radiotherapy
name: |
|
first name |
|
birth: |
|
sex: |
|
HBO fitness: |
yes O , no O date of examination: |
operation status: |
R1 O R2 O biopsy only O |
randomisation |
O
HBO+radiation O radiation
allone |
Karnofsky status |
|
neurological status |
|
laboratory
investigation |
yes O non O date: |
medication (dose) |
|
|
|
additive remarks: |
|
CT/MRI |
date: |
PET [FDG] |
no O; before O,
after O overall treatment |
second operation: |
histology: date: resection status: |
|
|
|
|
breaking off: |
reason: |
after therapy: |
total number of HBO
sessions: |
clinician: |
signature: |
Radiotherapy evaluation protocol Instiution: date:
To be filled out by clinician
after overall treatment
1) Personal data
Name: First
name: birth:
Tumour localisation:
2) Radiation treatment
Start of radiotherapy: End
of radiotherapy:
Dose per faction: Total
dose: total number of
fraction:
Tumour: Gy Gy Gy
Radiotherapy break or break off : (yes =1, no=2)
Reason:
Clinical target volume (gross tumour volume + 2.0 cm
margin): (yes=1, no=2)
Linear accelerator (energy): MV Co-60
CT-planning: number of field technique: field shaping:
Immobilisation:
Taget volume dose/ICRU reference doset: Gy
Dose maximum: % ; Minimum: %
Dose to organs at risk:
Brain steam: Gy, Chiasma opticum: Gy, Eye lens ri: le:
Remarks:
Radiotherapy evaluation protocol page 2
Name: First
name: birth:
3) Acute treatment
toxicity (highest acute reaktion, CTC modification):
Neurotoxicity:
Headache: (0 no, 1
minimal, 2 intermittent, 3 intense)
Nausea: (0
no, 1 minimal, 2 persistent)
Seizures: (0 no, 1 oral medication controlled, 2 i.v. medication)
Skin: (0
no reaktion, 1 mild erythema, 2 marked erythema, 3 ulcer)
Other treatment toxicity :
Clinician : signature: date:
HBO
evaluation protocol
Name: First name: birth:
Treatment number and date |
HBO time (from -to) duration ATA HBO T C Oxygen beginn radiotherapy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EORTC QLQ - BN20
Patients sometimes report that they have the following
symptoms. Please indicate the extent
to which you have experienced these symptoms or problems during the past week.
________________________________________________________________________________
During the past week: Not at A Quite Very
All Little a
Bit Much
31. Did you feel uncertain
about the future? 1 2 3 4
32. Did you feel you had
setbacks in your condition? 1 2 3 4
33. Were you concerned about
disruption of family life? 1 2 3 4
34. Did you have headaches? 1 2 3 4
35. Did your outlook on the
future worsen? 1 2 3 4
36. Did you have double vision? 1 2 3 4
37. Was your vision blurred? 1 2 3 4
38. Did you have difficulty
reading because of your vision? 1 2 3 4
39. Did you have seizures? 1 2 3 4
40. Did you have weakness on
one side of your body? 1 2 3 4
41. Did you have trouble
finding the right words to
express yourself? 1 2 3 4
42. Did you have difficulty
speaking? 1 2 3 4
43. Did you have trouble
communicating your thoughts? 1 2 3 4
44. Did you feel drowsy during
the daytime? 1 2 3 4
45. Did you have trouble with
your coordination? 1 2 3 4
46. Did hair loss bother you? 1 2 3 4
47. Did itching of your skin
bother you? 1 2 3 4
48. Did you have weakness of
both legs? 1 2 3 4
49. Did you feel unsteady on
your feet? 1 2 3 4
50. Did you have trouble
controlling your bladder? 1 2 3 4
© Copyright 1994 EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. (phase III module)