Study On Fatigue- And Hand-Foot Syndrome-Related Quality Of Life In Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving A Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor as First-Line Treatment
TROYA
PROSPECTIVE, MULTICENTRE, OBSERVATIONAL STUDY ON FATIGUE- AND HAND-FOOT SYNDROME-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH METASTATIC RENAL CELL CARCINOMA RECEIVING A TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITOR AS FIRST-LINE TREATMENT (TROYA STUDY).
2 other identifiers
observational
111
1 country
23
Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is to know about the quality of life of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who are being treated with sunitinib, pazopanib or sorafenib, and who suffer from fatigue and hand-foot syndrome, with personal inter-variability, and to explore measures that can be taken in terms of both everyday lifestyle and treatment to mitigate or cure such side effects that affect patients.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P50-P75 for all trials
Started Dec 2016
Longer than P75 for all trials
23 active sites
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
May 17, 2016
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
June 2, 2016
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
December 22, 2016
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
October 20, 2020
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
October 20, 2020
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
November 5, 2021
CompletedNovember 5, 2021
October 1, 2021
3.8 years
May 17, 2016
October 6, 2021
October 6, 2021
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (36)
Number of Participants Categorized According to the Napping Habits for All Participants at Baseline
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to their habit of taking daytime rest (naps) as never, always and sometimes. Never is defined as someone who does not take any daytime nap, always is defined as someone who takes daytime naps daily and sometimes is defined as someone who takes daytime naps on weekends or on holidays.
Baseline
Number of Participants Categorized According to the Napping Habits for All Participants at Week 12
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to their habit of taking daytime rest (naps) as never, always and sometimes. Never is defined as someone who does not take any daytime nap, always is defined as someone who takes daytime naps daily and sometimes is defined as someone who takes daytime naps on weekends or on holidays.
Week 12
Number of Participants Categorized According to the Napping Habits for All Participants at Week 24
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to their habit of taking daytime rest (naps) as never, always and sometimes. Never is defined as someone who does not take any daytime nap, always is defined as someone who takes daytime naps daily and sometimes is defined as someone who takes daytime naps on weekends or on holidays.
Week 24
Number of Participants Categorized According to the Napping Habits for All Participants at Week 36
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to their habit of taking daytime rest (naps) as never, always and sometimes. Never is defined as someone who does not take any daytime nap, always is defined as someone who takes daytime naps daily and sometimes is defined as someone who takes daytime naps on weekends or on holidays.
Week 36
Number of Participants Categorized According to Association Between the Practice of Aerobic Physical Exercise and Fatigue at Baseline
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to the presence or absence of fatigue based on their habit of performing aerobic physical exercise as never, always and sometimes.
Baseline
Number of Participants Categorized According to Association Between the Practice of Aerobic Physical Exercise and Fatigue at Week 12
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to the presence or absence of fatigue based on their habit of performing aerobic physical exercise as never, always and sometimes.
Week 12
Number of Participants Categorized According to Association Between the Practice of Aerobic Physical Exercise and Fatigue at Week 24
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to the presence or absence of fatigue based on their habit of performing aerobic physical exercise as never, always and sometimes.
Week 24
Number of Participants Categorized According to Association Between the Practice of Aerobic Physical Exercise and Fatigue at Week 36
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to the presence or absence of fatigue based on their habit of performing aerobic physical exercise as never, always and sometimes.
Week 36
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Baseline
FACIT-F was a 13-item questionnaire which assessed self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale based on their experience of fatigue during the past 7 days (0= not at all; 1= a little bit; 2= somewhat; 3= quite a bit; 4= very much). FACIT-F score was calculated by summing the 13 items (range 0 \[not at all\] to 52 \[very much\]); higher scores represented less fatigue and better status of participants.
Baseline
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 6
FACIT-F was a 13-item questionnaire which assessed self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale based on their experience of fatigue during the past 7 days (0= not at all; 1= a little bit; 2= somewhat; 3= quite a bit; 4= very much). FACIT-F score was calculated by summing the 13 items (range 0 \[not at all\] to 52 \[very much\]); higher scores represented less fatigue and better status of participants.
Week 6
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 12
FACIT-F was a 13-item questionnaire which assessed self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale based on their experience of fatigue during the past 7 days (0= not at all; 1= a little bit; 2= somewhat; 3= quite a bit; 4= very much). FACIT-F score was calculated by summing the 13 items (range 0 \[not at all\] to 52 \[very much\]); higher scores represented less fatigue and better status of participants.
Week 12
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 18
FACIT-F was a 13-item questionnaire which assessed self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale based on their experience of fatigue during the past 7 days (0= not at all; 1= a little bit; 2= somewhat; 3= quite a bit; 4= very much). FACIT-F score was calculated by summing the 13 items (range 0 \[not at all\] to 52 \[very much\]); higher scores represented less fatigue and better status of participants.
Week 18
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 24
FACIT-F was a 13-item questionnaire which assessed self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale based on their experience of fatigue during the past 7 days (0= not at all; 1= a little bit; 2= somewhat; 3= quite a bit; 4= very much). FACIT-F score was calculated by summing the 13 items (range 0 \[not at all\] to 52 \[very much\]); higher scores represented less fatigue and better status of participants.
Week 24
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 30
FACIT-F was a 13-item questionnaire which assessed self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale based on their experience of fatigue during the past 7 days (0= not at all; 1= a little bit; 2= somewhat; 3= quite a bit; 4= very much). FACIT-F score was calculated by summing the 13 items (range 0 \[not at all\] to 52 \[very much\]); higher scores represented less fatigue and better status of participants.
Week 30
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 36
FACIT-F was a 13-item questionnaire which assessed self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale based on their experience of fatigue during the past 7 days (0= not at all; 1= a little bit; 2= somewhat; 3= quite a bit; 4= very much). FACIT-F score was calculated by summing the 13 items (range 0 \[not at all\] to 52 \[very much\]); higher scores represented less fatigue and better status of participants.
Week 36
Number of Participants Classified According to Time of Taking Treatment at Week 1
In this outcome measure, the number of participants were classified on the basis of the time of taking the oral medication - "morning, afternoon or night". Morning was anytime between 7 am to 12 pm. Afternoon was anytime between 1 pm and 7 pm. Night was anytime between 8 pm to 6 am. Participants who did not take medication were also classified.
Week 1
Number of Participants Classified According to Time of Taking Treatment at Week 6
In this outcome measure, the number of participants were classified on the basis of the time of taking the oral medication - "morning, afternoon or night". Morning was anytime between 7 am to 12 pm. Afternoon was anytime between 1 pm and 7 pm. Night was anytime between 8 pm to 6 am. Participants who did not take medication were also classified.
Week 6
Number of Participants Classified According to Time of Taking Treatment at Week 12
In this outcome measure, the number of participants were classified on the basis of the time of taking the oral medication - "morning, afternoon or night". Morning was anytime between 7 am to 12 pm. Afternoon was anytime between 1 pm and 7 pm. Night was anytime between 8 pm to 6 am. Participants who did not take medication were also classified.
Week 12
Number of Participants Classified According to Time of Taking Treatment at Week 18
In this outcome measure, the number of participants were classified on the basis of the time of taking the oral medication - "morning, afternoon or night". Morning was anytime between 7 am to 12 pm. Afternoon was anytime between 1 pm and 7 pm. Night was anytime between 8 pm to 6 am. Participants who did not take medication were also classified.
Week 18
Number of Participants Classified According to Time of Taking Treatment at Week 24
In this outcome measure, the number of participants were classified on the basis of the time of taking the oral medication - "morning, afternoon or night". Morning was anytime between 7 am to 12 pm. Afternoon was anytime between 1 pm and 7 pm. Night was anytime between 8 pm to 6 am. Participants who did not take medication were also classified.
Week 24
Number of Participants Classified According to Time of Taking Treatment at Week 30
In this outcome measure, the number of participants were classified on the basis of the time of taking the oral medication - "morning, afternoon or night". Morning was anytime between 7 am to 12 pm. Afternoon was anytime between 1 pm and 7 pm. Night was anytime between 8 pm to 6 am. Participants who did not take medication were also classified.
Week 30
Number of Participants Classified According to Time of Taking Treatment at Week 36
In this outcome measure, the number of participants were classified on the basis of the time of taking the oral medication - "morning, afternoon or night". Morning was anytime between 7 am to 12 pm. Afternoon was anytime between 1 pm and 7 pm. Night was anytime between 8 pm to 6 am. Participants who did not take medication were also classified.
Week 36
Number of Participants Categorized According to Number of Changes to Dose Per Treatment Cycle During 9 Months of Follow-up
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to the number of changes to dose that is (i.e). 0, 1 or 2 occurred per treatment cycle during 9 months of follow-up.
During 9 months
Number of Participants Categorized According to Number of Interruptions to Dose Occurred in Each Treatment Cycle During 9 Months of Follow-up
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to the number of interruptions to dose i.e. 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 occurred in each treatment cycle during 9 months follow-up.
During 9 months
Number of Participants With Best Response Per Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumours Version 1.1. (RECIST v1.1)
Best response was recorded from start of treatment with TKI until best complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) or disease progression (DP) was achieved. RECIST v1.1, a) CR: disappearance of all lesions; any pathological lymph nodes (target lesions \[TLs\]) or non-target lesions (non-TLs) must have reduction in short axis to \<10 mm; normalization of tumor marker level for non-TLs; b) PR: \>=30% decrease in sum of diameter of all TLs, taking as reference baseline sum of diameters; c) DP: \>=20% increase in sum of diameter of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest sum on study (including baseline measurement), sum must also be absolute increase of \>=5 mm. Unequivocal progression of existing non TLs. Appearance of at least 1 new lesion; d) SD: neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor sufficient increase in lesions to qualify for PD referring smallest sum diameter. Participant whose best response was not determined were classified as "Undetermined".
From start of treatment with TKI until first documented best response of CR, PR, SD or DP (approximately maximum up to 3.8 years)
Mean Duration of Treatment
In this outcome measure, the mean duration of treatment was calculated and reported below.
From start of treatment till end of treatment (approximately maximum up to 3.8 years)
Time to Treatment Failure (TTF) After Initiation of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy
TTF was defined as the time from the start of treatment with a TKI to tumour progression, treatment discontinuation for any reason or death from any cause. Participants who did not had the event were censored on the date of their final follow-up. Per RECIST 1.1, tumour progression: \>=20% increase in sum of diameter of all measured target lesions, taking as reference smallest sum on study (including baseline measurement) of diameter of all target lesions, sum must also demonstrate an absolute increase of \>=5 mm. Unequivocal progression of existing non target lesions. Appearance of at least 1 new lesion.
From start of treatment with a TKI to tumour progression, treatment discontinuation for any reason or death from any cause or till follow-up in case of no event (approximately maximum up to 3.8 years)
Number of Participants Categorized According to Number of Treatment Cycles Received
In this outcome measure, number of participants were classified according to number of treatment cycles received.
From start of treatment till end of treatment (approximately maximum up to 3.8 years)
Progression-Free Survival (PFS)
PFS was defined as the time from the start of treatment with a TKI to tumour progression or death for any reason. Participants who, did not had the event were censored on the date of their final follow-up. Per RECIST v1.1, tumour progression: \>=20% increase in sum of diameter of all measured target lesions, taking as reference smallest sum on study (including baseline measurement) of diameter of all target lesions, sum must also demonstrate an absolute increase of \>=5 mm. Unequivocal progression of existing non target lesions. Appearance of at least 1 new lesion.
From start of treatment with a TKI to tumour progression or death for any reason or till follow-up in case of no event (approximately maximum up to 3.8 years)
Objective Response Rate (ORR)
ORR was defined as the percentage of participants who achieved CR or PR. Per RECIST V1.1, a) CR: disappearance of all lesions; any pathological lymph nodes (target lesions or non-target lesions) must have reduction in short axis to \<10 mm; normalization of tumor marker level for non-TLs; b) PR: \>=30% decrease in sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference baseline sum of diameters.
From start of treatment with TKI until first documented CR or PR (approximately maximum up to 3.8 years)
Duration of Response (DOR)
In participants who achieved CR or PR, DOR was defined as the duration from the documentation date of CR or PR to the first day when DP was observed. Per RECIST V1.1, a) CR: disappearance of all lesions; any pathological lymph nodes (target lesions or non-target lesions must have reduction in short axis to \<10 mm; normalization of tumor marker level for non-target lesions; b) PR: \>=30% decrease in sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference baseline sum of diameters; c) DP: \>=20% increase in sum of diameter of all measured target lesions, taking as reference smallest sum on study (including baseline measurement), sum must also demonstrate an absolute increase of \>=5 mm. Unequivocal progression of existing non TLs. Appearance of at least 1 new lesion.
From day of documented CR or PR to the first day that DP was observed (approximately maximum up to 3.8 years)
Number of Participants With Fatigue Event Graded Per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0
An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. As per CTCAE version 4, Grade 1= mild AE; Grade 2= moderate AE; Grade 3= severe AE; Grade 4= life-threatening or disabling AE; Grade 5= death related to an AE. In this outcome measure number of participants with fatigue event were classified into following: CTCAE grade 1 to 2 and CTCAE grade 3 to 4.
During 9 months
Number of Participants With Hand Foot Syndrome Event Graded Per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0
An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. As per CTCAE version 4, Grade 1= mild AE; Grade 2= moderate AE; Grade 3= severe AE; Grade 4= life-threatening or disabling AE; Grade 5= death related to an AE. In this outcome measure number of participants with hand foot syndrome event were classified into following: CTCAE grade 1 to 2 and CTCAE grade 3 to 4.
During 9 months
Number of Participants With Palmar-Plantar Erythrodysaesthesia (HFS) Event Graded Per CTCAE Version 4.0 at Week 12
AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. As per CTCAE version 4, Grade 1= mild AE; Grade 2= moderate AE; Grade 3= severe AE; Grade 4= life-threatening or disabling AE; Grade 5= death related to an AE. In this outcome measure number of participants with HFS event graded per CTCAE version 4.0 at Week 12 are reported.
Week 12
Number of Participants With Palmar-Plantar Erythrodysaesthesia (HFS) Event Graded Per CTCAE Version 4.0 at Week 24
AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. As per CTCAE version 4, Grade 1= mild AE; Grade 2= moderate AE; Grade 3= severe AE; Grade 4= life-threatening or disabling AE; Grade 5= death related to an AE. In this outcome measure number of participants with HFS event graded per CTCAE version 4.0 at Week 24 are reported.
Week 24
Number of Participants With Palmar-Plantar Erythrodysaesthesia (HFS) Event Graded Per CTCAE Version 4.0 at Week 36
AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. As per CTCAE version 4, Grade 1= mild AE; Grade 2= moderate AE; Grade 3= severe AE; Grade 4= life-threatening or disabling AE; Grade 5= death related to an AE. In this outcome measure number of participants with HFS event graded per CTCAE version 4.0 at Week 36 are reported.
Week 36
Eligibility Criteria
A population of 100 patients aged 18 years or over and diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who are to start first-line treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor according to routine clinical practice is to be studied
You may qualify if:
- Patients ≥ 18 years old and diagnosed with metastatic RCC who, in the investigator's opinion, are candidates for starting first-line treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor according to routine clinical practice.
- Patients who have no contraindications to the treatment.
- Baseline ECOG ≤ 2.
- Patients who are able to give informed consent on their own without the need for a legal representative.
- Committed patients who are able to complete the quality of life questionnaires and patient diary on their own without the need for a legal representative.
You may not qualify if:
- Patients who are not candidates for first-line treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor.
- Patients who are receiving the treatment as second-line or subsequent therapy.
- Untreated hypothyroidism.
- Untreated severe anaemia.
- Pregnancy or breast-feeding.
- Myocardial infarction or cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) within the last 6 months.
- Severe hepatic impairment.
- Concomitant use of potent inhibitors or inducers that interact with hepatic cytochrome CYP3A4.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- Pfizerlead
- TFS Trial Form Supportcollaborator
Study Sites (23)
Hospital Arquitecto Marcide de Ferrol
Ferrol, A Coruña, 15405, Spain
Hospital Asil de Granollers
Granollers, Barcelona, 08402, Spain
Hospital Parc Taulí
Sabadell, Barcelona, 08208, Spain
Hospital Galdakano
Usansolo, Bizkaia, 48960, Spain
Complejo Hospitalario la Mancha Centro
Alcázar de San Juan, Ciudad REAL, 13600, Spain
Hospital Universitari Son Espases
Palma, Mallorca, 07120, Spain
Hospital Universitario Sant Joan de Reus / Servicio de Oncología Médica
Reus, Tarragona, 43204, Spain
H. Universitario Infanta Cristina
Badajoz, 06006, Spain
Hospital Vall de Hebrón
Barcelona, 08035, Spain
Hospital Universitario Ciudad Real
Ciudad Real, 13005, Spain
H. Reina Sofía de Cordoba
Córdoba, 14004, Spain
ICO Girona (Hospital Dr.Josep Trueta)
Girona, 17007, Spain
Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén
Jaén, 23007, Spain
Complejo Hospitalario de León
León, 24071, Spain
Hospital Universitario La Princesa / Servicio de Oncología Médica
Madrid, 28006, Spain
Complejo Hospitalario Ourense. Hospital Santa María Nai
Ourense, 32005, Spain
Hospital General de Asturias
Oviedo, 33011, Spain
Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra
Pamplona, 31008, Spain
Hospital Universitario Canarias
Santa Cruz de Tenerife, 38320, Spain
Hospital de Sant Pau i Santa Tecla
Tarragona, 43003, Spain
Hospital Virgen de la Salud
Toledo, 45071, Spain
Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia
Valencia, 46011, Spain
H Clínico Zaragoza
Zaragoza, 50009, Spain
Related Links
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Pfizer ClinicalTrials.gov Call Center
- Organization
- Pfizer Inc.
Study Officials
- STUDY DIRECTOR
Pfizer CT.gov Call Center
Pfizer
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- No
- Restriction Type
- OTHER
- Restrictive Agreement
- Yes
Study Design
- Study Type
- observational
- Observational Model
- COHORT
- Time Perspective
- PROSPECTIVE
- Target Duration
- 9 Months
- Sponsor Type
- INDUSTRY
- Responsible Party
- SPONSOR
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
May 17, 2016
First Posted
June 2, 2016
Study Start
December 22, 2016
Primary Completion
October 20, 2020
Study Completion
October 20, 2020
Last Updated
November 5, 2021
Results First Posted
November 5, 2021
Record last verified: 2021-10
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will not share
Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data and related study documents (e.g. protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), Clinical Study Report (CSR)) upon request from qualified researchers, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions. Further details on Pfizer's data sharing criteria and process for requesting access can be found at: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical\_trials/trial\_data\_and\_results/data\_requests.