Bundaberg West, Australia
Mobile Health for Adherence in Breast Cancer Patients
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To compare CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) adherence at 12 months after completion of the baseline survey captured using electronic monitoring between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare CDK4/6i adherence at 12 months after completion of the baseline survey captured through self-report between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. II. To compare CDK4/6i persistence at 12 months after completion of the baseline survey captured using electronic monitoring between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. III. To compare symptom burden at 12 months between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. IV. To compare quality of life at 12 months between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. V. To compare patient-provider communication at 12 months between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. VI. To compare self-efficacy for managing symptoms at 12 months between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. VII. To compare financial worry at 12 months between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess longitudinal changes of patient-reported outcomes (self reported adherence, symptom burden, quality of life, and financial worry) from the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. II. To compare healthcare utilization at 12 months between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. III. To compare progression-free survival at 12 months between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. IV. To compare overall survival at 12 months between the EUC (Arm A) and CONCURxP (Arm B) arms. V. To describe CONCURxP (Arm B) patients and their provider experience with various implementation outcomes. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized into 1 of 2 arms. Non-patient participants are assigned to arm C. ARM A: Patients use the WiseBag medication dispenser and receive access to educational materials every 4 weeks over 12 months. ARM B: Patients use the WiseBag medication dispenser and receive personalized text message reminders, medication tracking and healthcare provider follow ups as part of the CONCURxP platform over 12 months. Patients may complete an interview over 20-30 minutes within 6 months of study completion. ARM C: Participants complete an interview over 20-30 minutes 15-39 months post-first patient enrollment. After completion of study intervention, patients may be followed up to 6 months.
Phase
N/ASpan
184 weeksSponsor
ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research GroupBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting
Healthy Volunteers
Ramucirumab Plus Pembrolizumab vs Usual Care for Treatment of Stage IV or Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Following Immunotherapy, Pragmatica-Lung Study
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To compare overall survival (OS) in participants previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy for stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) randomized to pembrolizumab and ramucirumab versus standard of care. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: I. To summarize reports of serious and unexpected high-grade (>= grade 3) treatment-related adverse events determined by the treating physician within each treatment arm. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM A: Patients receive chemotherapy per standard of care on study. ARM B: Patients receive ramucirumab intravenously (IV) and pembrolizumab IV on study.
Phase
3Span
262 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting
Targeted Treatment for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer That Has a MET Exon 14 Skipping Gene Change (An Expanded Lung-MAP Treatment Trial)
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To compare the response rate (confirmed or unconfirmed, complete or impartial) between participants with MET exon 14 skipping positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) randomized to tepotinib with or without ramucirumab. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare the frequency of all-grade treatment- related peripheral edema as defined by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) between the arms. II. To evaluate the frequency and severity of toxicities within each arm. III. To compare progression-free survival between the arms. IV. To compare overall survival between the arms. V. To estimate the duration of response (DoR) among responders within each arm. TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE OBJECTIVE: I. To establish a tissue/blood repository for participants with MET exon 14 skipping non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM A: Patients receive ramucirumab intravenously (IV) over 30-60 minutes on day 1 of each cycle and tepotinib orally (PO) once daily (QD) on days 1-21 of each cycle. Cycles repeat every 21 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM B: Patients receive tepotinib PO QD on days 1-21 of each cycle. Cycles repeat every 21 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients undergo lymphoscintigraphy scan and computed tomography (CT) scan and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) throughout the trial. Patients also undergo blood sample collection while on study. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed-up every 12 weeks or more often as clinically indicated until progression and then every 6 months for 2 years and at the end of 3 years from date of sub-study randomization.
Phase
2Span
251 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting
A Study to Learn About How 20-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Works in a Real-world Setting
This is an observational test-negative design study in which all study participants are adults ≥65 years of age hospitalized with RAD+CAP at one of the study sites. The only protocol-specified study procedure is a non-invasive urine specimen collection for pneumococcal detection using BinaxNOW® S. pneumoniae and the serotype-specific urinary antigen detection (UAD) assays. Cases and controls will be differentiated by the presence of vaccine serotypes that are identified by any method, including Quellung reaction of pneumococcal isolates obtained from standard of care (SOC) cultures from blood or high-quality respiratory tract specimens, or serotype specific UAD assays performed on urine specimens. The serotype-specific UAD assays, termed UAD-1 and UAD-2, detect the 13 serotypes in 13vPnC (1, 3, 4, 5, 6A/C, 6B/D, 7F/A, 9V/A, 14, 18C/A/ B/ F, 19A, 19F, 23F) (UAD-1) and 11 additional serotypes (2, 8, 9N, 10A/39, 11A/D/F, 12F, 15B/C, 17F/A, 20A/B, 22F/A, 33F/A) (UAD-2). For the primary objective, cases will be defined as participants hospitalized for RAD+CAP in whom the 7 additional serotypes in 20vPnC beyond 13vPnC plus 15C are identified. All other participants who meet study inclusion criteria but for whom 20vPnC serotypes are not identified from any source and all other RAD+CAP of non-pneumococcal etiologies will serve as test-negative controls.
Phase
N/ASpan
241 weeksSponsor
PfizerBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting
An Observational Research Study for Cancer Patients on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, DiRECT Study
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To compare incidence of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 2-5 immune-related adverse reactions (irAEs) between African American (AA) and European American (EA) patients within the first year of starting immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare objective response rate (ORR) to ICI treatment between AA and EA patients within the first year of starting ICI treatment. II. To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference (Patient Reported Outcomes [PRO] Pr) summary score and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Immune Checkpoint Modulator (FACT-ICM) between AA and EA patients within 1 year of starting ICI treatment. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare AA and EA patients on severity (i.e., CTCAE grade) and timing of irAEs within 1 year of starting ICI treatment. II. To assess disease, treatment, individual, and behavioral factors as predictors of grade 2-5 irAEs, and as potential causes of racial differences in irAEs, within 1 year of starting ICI treatment. III. To compare AA and EA patients on long-term outcomes (e.g., progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS], and HRQOL beyond the first year) at the end of the study period. IV. To assess the impact of irAEs and disease, treatment, behavioral, and individual factors on ICI outcomes (ORR, HRQOL, PFS, OS), and as potential causes of racial differences in outcomes, at the end of the study period. V. To compare ICI treatment patterns (e.g., delay and discontinuation of ICI treatment) between AA and EA patients within 1 year of starting ICI treatment. VI. To assess irAEs, treatment, disease, and individual factors, including healthcare barriers, as possible reasons for suboptimal treatment patterns, and as potential causes of racial differences, within 1 year of starting ICI treatment. VII. To collect optional stool samples and an additional blood sample at the time of the occurrence of grade 3-4 irAEs to strengthen the biobank for future research on ICI response and racial disparities. OUTLINE: This is an observational study. Patients complete questionnaires and undergo collection of blood, saliva, and optional stool samples before 1st and 2nd infusion of immunotherapy. Patients also complete additional questionnaires undergo additional collection of blood samples 6 months after 1st infusion of immunotherapy and then every year after 1st infusion of immunotherapy. A tumor sample will also be collected at the beginning of the study and patients medical records will be reviewed. Patients may also optionally complete an interview following their 2nd infusion of immunotherapy.
Phase
N/ASpan
406 weeksSponsor
University of Rochester NCORP Research BaseBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting
Five or Ten Year Colonoscopy for 1-2 Non-Advanced Adenomatous Polyps
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States (US). The lifetime risk of colorectal cancer in both men and women in the US is approximately 6%. About 93% of colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses are in patients older than 50 years (Siegel 2014). Randomized controlled trials show that screening for CRC significantly decreases CRC incidence and mortality (Schoen 2012, Atkin 2010, Mandel 1999, Mandel 2000). CRC screening has received a Grade A recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force. In the U.S., colonoscopy is the most utilized screening modality for CRC. On a population basis, screening rates, which were around 40-50%, have now increased to 65%, and a goal to increase to 80% compliance is being promoted (CDC 2011, CDC 2013, Meester 2015). Adenomatous polyps are the acknowledged precursors of colorectal cancer. Identification and removal of adenomas is the mechanism by which screening is effective in reducing CRC incidence and subsequent mortality. "Advanced" adenomas are adenomas which are greater than or equal to 1 cm, or have a "villous" component (tubulovillous or villous), or have foci of high grade dysplasia. Advanced adenomas are associated with increased long-term risk of cancer, even years after colonoscopy (Click 2018). The prevalence of advanced adenomas at screening colonoscopy is 5-10% (Ferlitsch 2011, Imperiale 2014). Non-advanced adenomas are adenomas greater than 1 cm with neither villous components nor high grade dysplasia. Non-advanced adenomas are much more common than advanced adenomas, present in around 30% of colonoscopy exams (Ferlitsch 2011, Imperiale 2014). After detection of adenomas, patients are advised to return periodically for surveillance colonoscopy. Patients with 1-2 non-advanced adenomas are recommended by guidelines to return in 5 - 10 years for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy (Lieberman 2012). However, there are no guidelines on how to triage individuals to 5 as opposed to 10 years. Furthermore, there is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy in reducing CRC incidence. A retrospective study in patients with advanced adenomas demonstrated benefit (Atkin 2017), but the study was not randomized and did not include patients with 1-2 non-advanced adenomas. The only randomized trial of surveillance colonoscopy was reported in the early 1990's, when participants were randomized to 3 vs. 1- and 3- year surveillance (Winawer 1993). No difference in advanced adenoma detection was observed when comparing participants examined at the two screening intervals, and as a result, guidelines were modified with participants advised to return every 3 years after adenomatous polyp detection. The recommended interval for non-advanced adenomas was gradually lengthened to the current standard, but there is no randomized, controlled data to support that interval. Furthermore, observational data of surveillance colonoscopy practice in the U.S. demonstrate that recommended intervals are often not adhered to, and individuals return for repeat testing well ahead of guideline recommendations (Schoen 2010, Lieberman 2014). Furthermore, if anything, retrospective, natural history studies of non-advanced adenomas do not support the association of non-advanced adenoma with a higher risk of subsequent colorectal cancer (Atkin 1992, Spencer 1984, Loberg 2014). For example, in a classic study from the United Kingdom, patients with small rectosigmoid adenomas, even if multiple, did not have an increased risk of CRC compared to the general population, over a 14-year mean follow-up time (Atkin 1992). In a recent observational study from Norway, participants with a low-risk adenoma followed over a median of 7.7 years (maximum 19 years) without subsequent surveillance colonoscopy, had a lower CRC mortality than the general population (Loberg 2014), implying that although the initial colonoscopy may be protective, subsequent follow-up colonoscopy was not required. More recently, several studies have reported that individuals with non-advanced adenomas do not have an increased risk of colorectal cancer compared to those with no adenomas (Click 2018, Lieberman 2019, Lee 2019). Another recent major development affecting screening is that practitioners of colonoscopy are now recommended to monitor and insure their adenoma detection rates are high. Data from Poland (Kaminski 2010) and Kaiser Permanente in California (Corley 2014) have demonstrated that a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) is associated with a lower long-term risk of interval CRC, or cancer occurring after colonoscopy. Our understanding of these observations is premised on the notion that leaving pre-neoplastic tissue (adenomas) in situ, (such as what occurs with a lower ADR), increases the chance that an adenoma left behind will subsequently transform into cancer. The concern over interval cancers has stimulated quality concerns about the practice of colonoscopy. Guidelines for a recommended ADR at screening colonoscopy are rising, from the initial targets of 15% in women and 25% in men (Lieberman 2012) to 20% in women and 30% in men or 25% overall. ADRs in clinical studies are now commonly over 30% and some practitioners report rates exceeding 50%. However, adenomas that are detected when the ADR is high or as it increases over time are generally small, non-advanced adenomas. Current clinical practice favoring colonoscopy-based screening with increased emphasis on detection of adenomas, most of which will turn out to be small, non-advanced adenomas, will greatly increase demand for utilization of surveillance colonoscopy exams in the coming decades. Yet, the evidence for determining the benefit, optimal timing, and recommended frequency of surveillance colonoscopy is unknown. A randomized, clinical trial to demonstrate the difference in yield between 5- or 10-year surveillance for participants with non-advanced adenoma is needed to guide clinical practice. Only a randomized trial will be authoritative enough to define good clinical practice and directly influence clinical care.
Phase
N/ASpan
2282 weeksSponsor
NRG OncologyBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting
S1803, Lenalidomide +/- Daratumumab/rHuPh20 as Post-ASCT Maintenance for MM w/MRD to Direct Therapy Duration
Phase
3Span
1090 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting
Lung-MAP: A Master Screening Protocol for Previously-Treated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Primary Objective of the Master Protocol (LUNGMAP) The primary objective of this screening study is to test patient specimens to determine eligibility for participation in the biomarker-driven and non-matched sub-studies included within the Lung-MAP umbrella protocol. Secondary Objectives 1. Screening Success Rate Objective To evaluate the screen success rate defined as the percentage of screened patients that register for a therapeutic sub-study. Screen success rates will be evaluated for the total screened population and by the subset of patients screened following progression on previous therapy or pre-screened on current therapy. 2. Translational Medicine Objectives 1. To evaluate circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and compare to the FMI Foundation tissue molecular profiling results in patients who submit a new biopsy for screening. 2. To establish a tissue/blood repository. Ancillary Study S1400GEN Objectives The Lung-MAP Screening Study includes an ancillary study evaluating patient and physician attitudes regarding the return of somatic mutation findings suggestive of a germline mutation. Participation in this study is optional. 1. Primary Objective To evaluate patient attitudes and preferences about return of somatic mutation findings suggestive of a germline mutation in the Lung-MAP Screening Study. 2. Secondary Objectives 1. To evaluate Lung-MAP study physician attitudes and preferences about return of somatic mutation findings suggestive of a germline mutation in the Lung-MAP Screening Study. 2. To evaluate Lung-MAP patients' and study physicians' knowledge of cancer genomics. 3. To evaluate Lung-MAP patients' and study physicians' knowledge of the design of the Lung-MAP Screening Study. 4. To explore whether physician and patient knowledge of cancer genomics and attitudes and preferences about return of genomic profiling findings are correlated.
Phase
2/3Span
521 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting
Testing the Addition of the Drug Apalutamide to the Usual Hormone Therapy and Radiation Therapy After Surgery for Prostate Cancer, INNOVATE Trial
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. Compare metastasis-free survival (MFS) of salvage radiation therapy (RT) and gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist/antagonist versus (vs.) RT/GnRH agonist/antagonist with apalutamide for patients with pathologic node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy with detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. Compare health-related quality of life (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]-26, EuroQol [EQ]-5 Dimension [D]-5 Level [L], Brief Pain Inventory, Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System [PROMIS]-Fatigue) among the treatment arms. II. Compare overall survival, biochemical progression-free survival, time to local-regional progression, time to castrate resistance, and cancer-specific survival among the treatment arms. III. Compare the short-term and long-term treatment-related adverse events among the treatment arms. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. Validate Decipher score for an exclusively node-positive population and use additional genomic information from Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0st array to develop and validate novel prognostic and predictive biomarkers. II. Validate the PAM50-based classification of prostate cancer into luminal A, luminal B, and basal subtypes as prognostic markers and determine whether the luminal B subtype is a predictive marker for having a larger improvement in outcome from the addition of apalutamide. III. To optimize quality assurance methodologies and processes for radiotherapy and imaging with machine learning strategies. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive standard of care hormone therapy per physician discretion for 24 months. Patients also undergo standard of care pelvis and prostate bed radiation therapy 5 days per week over 5-6 or 7-8 weeks beginning within 90 days of randomization in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients undergo standard of care hormone therapy and radiation therapy as in Arm I. Patients also receive apalutamide orally (PO) once daily (QD) on days 1-90 of each cycle. Cycles repeat every 90 days for 8 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients in both arms may undergo computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), bone scan, and positron emission tomography (PET) as clinically indicated throughout the study. Patients may also undergo blood sample collection throughout the study. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 6 months for 3 years, then annually thereafter.
Phase
3Span
342 weeksSponsor
NRG OncologyBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting
Ramucirumab and Paclitaxel or FOLFIRI in Advanced Small Bowel Cancers
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate whether progression-free survival (PFS) meets an efficacy threshold in patients with previously treated advanced small bowel adenocarcinoma who receive treatment with ramucirumab and paclitaxel or FOLFIRI. II. If the stated threshold is met in both arms, to choose the better regimen with respect to progression free survival (PFS). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess overall response rate (ORR) [complete and partial, confirmed and unconfirmed] in the subset of patients with measurable disease treated with ramucirumab and paclitaxel or FOLFIRI in this patient population. II. To assess overall survival (OS) in patients treated with ramucirumab and paclitaxel or FOLFIRI in this patient population. III. To evaluate safety and toxicity associated with combination ramucirumab and paclitaxel treatment or FOLFIRI therapy in this patient population. TRANSLATIONAL OBJECTIVES: I. To explore the correlation of maximum decrease in CEA levels and time to maximum decrease in CEA levels with PFS, OS, and ORR. II. To bank tissue and blood samples for other future correlative studies from patients enrolled on the study. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive ramucirumab intravenously (IV) over 30-60 minutes on days 1 and 15, and paclitaxel IV over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients receive irinotecan IV over 90 minutes on days 1 and 15, leucovorin IV over 2 hours on days 1 and 15, and fluorouracil IV bolus on days 1 and 15. Patients also receive fluorouracil IV over 46-48 hours on days 1-3 and 15-17. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients completing study treatment are followed up every 8 weeks until disease progression. Once the disease has progressed, patients are followed up every 6 months for up to 3 years post registration.
Phase
2Span
263 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkBaldwin Park, California
Recruiting