Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 7:55 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-01-04 @ 3:42 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01018004
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2013-08-26
First Post:
2009-11-20
Is Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Comparing Follow-Up Schedules in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Stage IB or Stage II Melanoma
Sponsor:
University Medical Center Groningen
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Prospective Randomized Trial for the Evaluation of a Theoretical Follow-Up Schedule in Cutaneous Melanoma Patients, the MELFO-Study.
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2010-07
Last Known Status:
RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
RATIONALE: Gathering information over time from follow-up visits may help doctors plan the best follow-up schedule. It is not yet known which follow-up schedule is more effective in improving patient quality of life.
PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial is comparing follow-up schedules to see how well they work in patients with newly diagnosed stage IB or stage II melanoma.
PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial is comparing follow-up schedules to see how well they work in patients with newly diagnosed stage IB or stage II melanoma.
Detailed Description:
OBJECTIVES:
* To determine the difference between conventional versus experimental follow-up schedules, in terms of patient well-being, expressed health-related quality of life, level of anxiety, and satisfaction with the follow-up schedule in patients with newly diagnosed stage IB or II cutaneous melanoma.
* To determine the ability of these schedules to detect recurrences and second primary melanomas in these patients.
OUTLINE: Patients are stratified according to AJCC stage (I vs II). Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 follow-up arms.
* Arm I (experimental follow-up schedule): Patients undergo a thorough history and physical examination periodically for 5 years. Patients are followed up according to the experimental schedule:
* For stage IB disease: Patients are followed up annually for 5 years.
* For stage IIA disease: Patients are followed up biannually for years 1 and 2 and annually for years 3, 4, and 5.
* For stage IIB or IIC disease: Patients are followed up every 4 months during years 1 and 2, every 6 months during year 3, and annually during years 4 and 5.
* Arm II: (conventional follow-up schedule): Patients undergo a thorough history and physical examination periodically for 5 years. Patients are followed up according to the conventional schedule:
* For all stage disease: Patients are followed up every 3 months for year 1, every 4 months for year 2, and every 6 months for years 3-5.
In both arms, patient well-being is measured at 0, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after primary diagnosis, using the following questionnaires: the health-related quality of life questionnaire (RAND-36), the anxiety questionnaire (STAI version DY-1 \[state\] and DY-2 \[trait\]), the Cancer Worry Scale, and Follow-up Satisfaction questionnaire, and the self-designed specific questions regarding self-examination and follow-up satisfaction.
All patients are instructed at primary diagnosis and receive the Melanoma-Patient-Education-Package (MPEP), which consists of information on melanoma (KWF folder "melanoma") and additional instruction on self-examination. Data on type of recurrence (locoregional versus distant), the person detecting the recurrence, progression of recurrence at time of detection, the way the recurrence was detected (e.g., self-examination, accidentally, or at follow-up by physical examination or imaging) and information regarding treatment and further follow-up are collected at each follow-up visit and the outcomes are compared in both groups. Outcomes of independent questionnaires are also compared in both groups.
* To determine the difference between conventional versus experimental follow-up schedules, in terms of patient well-being, expressed health-related quality of life, level of anxiety, and satisfaction with the follow-up schedule in patients with newly diagnosed stage IB or II cutaneous melanoma.
* To determine the ability of these schedules to detect recurrences and second primary melanomas in these patients.
OUTLINE: Patients are stratified according to AJCC stage (I vs II). Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 follow-up arms.
* Arm I (experimental follow-up schedule): Patients undergo a thorough history and physical examination periodically for 5 years. Patients are followed up according to the experimental schedule:
* For stage IB disease: Patients are followed up annually for 5 years.
* For stage IIA disease: Patients are followed up biannually for years 1 and 2 and annually for years 3, 4, and 5.
* For stage IIB or IIC disease: Patients are followed up every 4 months during years 1 and 2, every 6 months during year 3, and annually during years 4 and 5.
* Arm II: (conventional follow-up schedule): Patients undergo a thorough history and physical examination periodically for 5 years. Patients are followed up according to the conventional schedule:
* For all stage disease: Patients are followed up every 3 months for year 1, every 4 months for year 2, and every 6 months for years 3-5.
In both arms, patient well-being is measured at 0, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after primary diagnosis, using the following questionnaires: the health-related quality of life questionnaire (RAND-36), the anxiety questionnaire (STAI version DY-1 \[state\] and DY-2 \[trait\]), the Cancer Worry Scale, and Follow-up Satisfaction questionnaire, and the self-designed specific questions regarding self-examination and follow-up satisfaction.
All patients are instructed at primary diagnosis and receive the Melanoma-Patient-Education-Package (MPEP), which consists of information on melanoma (KWF folder "melanoma") and additional instruction on self-examination. Data on type of recurrence (locoregional versus distant), the person detecting the recurrence, progression of recurrence at time of detection, the way the recurrence was detected (e.g., self-examination, accidentally, or at follow-up by physical examination or imaging) and information regarding treatment and further follow-up are collected at each follow-up visit and the outcomes are compared in both groups. Outcomes of independent questionnaires are also compared in both groups.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
Is an Unapproved Device?:
Is a PPSD?:
Is a US Export?:
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: