NCT02789137

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

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
111

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for all trials

Timeline
Completed

Started Dec 2016

Longer than P75 for all trials

Geographic Reach
1 country

23 active sites

Status
completed

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

Completed
16 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

June 2, 2016

Completed
7 months until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

December 22, 2016

Completed
3.8 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

October 20, 2020

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

October 20, 2020

Completed
1 year until next milestone

Results Posted

Study results publicly available

November 5, 2021

Completed
Last Updated

November 5, 2021

Status Verified

October 1, 2021

Enrollment Period

3.8 years

First QC Date

May 17, 2016

Results QC Date

October 6, 2021

Last Update Submit

October 6, 2021

Conditions

Keywords

metastatic renal cell carcinoma

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

Age18 Years+
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)
Sampling MethodNon-Probability Sample
Study Population

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

Study Sites (23)

Hospital Arquitecto Marcide de Ferrol

Ferrol, A Coruña, 15405, Spain

Location

Hospital Asil de Granollers

Granollers, Barcelona, 08402, Spain

Location

Hospital Parc Taulí

Sabadell, Barcelona, 08208, Spain

Location

Hospital Galdakano

Usansolo, Bizkaia, 48960, Spain

Location

Complejo Hospitalario la Mancha Centro

Alcázar de San Juan, Ciudad REAL, 13600, Spain

Location

Hospital Universitari Son Espases

Palma, Mallorca, 07120, Spain

Location

Hospital Universitario Sant Joan de Reus / Servicio de Oncología Médica

Reus, Tarragona, 43204, Spain

Location

H. Universitario Infanta Cristina

Badajoz, 06006, Spain

Location

Hospital Vall de Hebrón

Barcelona, 08035, Spain

Location

Hospital Universitario Ciudad Real

Ciudad Real, 13005, Spain

Location

H. Reina Sofía de Cordoba

Córdoba, 14004, Spain

Location

ICO Girona (Hospital Dr.Josep Trueta)

Girona, 17007, Spain

Location

Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén

Jaén, 23007, Spain

Location

Complejo Hospitalario de León

León, 24071, Spain

Location

Hospital Universitario La Princesa / Servicio de Oncología Médica

Madrid, 28006, Spain

Location

Complejo Hospitalario Ourense. Hospital Santa María Nai

Ourense, 32005, Spain

Location

Hospital General de Asturias

Oviedo, 33011, Spain

Location

Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra

Pamplona, 31008, Spain

Location

Hospital Universitario Canarias

Santa Cruz de Tenerife, 38320, Spain

Location

Hospital de Sant Pau i Santa Tecla

Tarragona, 43003, Spain

Location

Hospital Virgen de la Salud

Toledo, 45071, Spain

Location

Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia

Valencia, 46011, Spain

Location

H Clínico Zaragoza

Zaragoza, 50009, Spain

Location

Related Links

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Carcinoma, Renal Cell

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

AdenocarcinomaCarcinomaNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialNeoplasms by Histologic TypeNeoplasmsKidney NeoplasmsUrologic NeoplasmsUrogenital NeoplasmsNeoplasms by SiteFemale Urogenital DiseasesFemale Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy ComplicationsUrogenital DiseasesKidney DiseasesUrologic DiseasesMale Urogenital Diseases

Results Point of Contact

Title
Pfizer ClinicalTrials.gov Call Center
Organization
Pfizer Inc.

Study Officials

  • Pfizer CT.gov Call Center

    Pfizer

    STUDY DIRECTOR

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.

Locations