Bombay, India

A Diagnostic Test to Evaluate Cancer Risk Before Surgery in Women with an Ovarian Mass

Triple-masking v Double-masking: a Trial of Scientific Publication in Public Health

Aim: To determine whether masking (i.e., triple-masked: editors, authors, reviewers) or not (i.e., double-masked: authors, reviewers) the identity, seniority, gender, race, ethnicity, and institutions of the authors and of the reviewers to the editors leads to a greater proportion of accepted manuscripts compared with double-masked review. Additionally, we will conduct exploratory analyses to determine whether the differences are related to the identity, seniority, gender, race, ethnicity, and institutions of the authors and of the reviewers. Trial design: two group, parallel, superiority trial with 1:1 allocation Study setting: The trial will solely take place at the American Journal of Public Health in a virtual capacity. All submissions will be electronic via the Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/ajph/default2.aspx). Eligible manuscripts in the blinded editorial process arm will be masked electronically before being entered in the trial by the editorial assistant, who will also place all manuscripts in Dropbox folders to be accessed by the editors. The questionnaire that will be sent to all authors, reviewers, and editors is housed in Survey Monkey and will be administered via email and/or text messaging by someone external to the trial. Inclusions: All eligible, new submissions (research, notes from the field, non-commissioned editorials, analytic essays, systematic reviews) for the regular issue and supplements from September 5, 2023 to March 1, 2024. Exclusions: Commissioned editorials, book reviews, Letters to the Editor, Public Health of Consequence editorials, Editor's Choice, and re-submissions Randomization procedure: 1:1 allocation of eligible articles to either triple-masked or usual process in the order of submission, after exclusion of non-eligible submissions by the editorial assistant. Planned generation: Randomization, stratified by three article types (ie, Research Articles, Analytic Essay, Editorial & Notes from the Field), by blocks of random sizes to balance articles by type over time, and to conceal allocation order. Administration/implementation: Editorial assistant allocates the submissions following computer generated allocation orders for each of the three article types. Masking securities: Editors will be restricted from accessing the Editorial Manager for the duration of the project. Additionally, since articles won't be assigned to editors, they won't be able to see anything from their immediate accounts. This should block them from the masked information and preserve the integrity of the project. Editors will be able to search for reviewers with specific expertise from an external, cleaned nominative version of the Editorial Manager database. They won't however know who, from the reviewers selected, accepted the invitation and wrote the review. In this sense, reviews' authorship will be masked to the editor. Procedures: 1. Questionnaire: All authors of new, eligible submissions will receive an email from a research assistant external to the trial that will explain the on-going trial. The email will invite them to fill out an optional, short, Survey Monkey questionnaire asking for age, gender, race, ethnicity, career position, and institution location. The questionnaire data will be collected in a stand-alone database, handled by the research assistant. Missing value are expected to be equally distributed in both arms of the study. However, for secondary analysis they may be correlated with the outcome. The same questionnaire will be sent but only once to the editors. Primary outcome: Difference in the proportion of manuscripts submitted within the six-month window that are accepted for publication (i.e., not rejected at any stage); risk difference, unadjusted Secondary outcome: Difference in the proportion of manuscripts submitted within the six-month window that are sent for peer review (i.e., not desk rejected); risk difference, unadjusted Proportion accepted in the double-masked group: ~10% Clinically meaningful difference: 5% Framework: Superiority N= 1500 (750 manuscripts in each group), 80% power to detect a difference of 4.8% (RR=1.48) in acceptance rate with 5% type I error for a two-sided test. This translates to an acceptance rate of 14.8% for the triple=masked. Additionally, the trial is projected to have 84% power to detect a difference of 5% (RR=1.5), and 90% power to detect a difference of 5.5% (RR=1.55) while remaining a 5% type I error for a two-sided test. The statistical power to detect differences if they exist in subgroups defined by article type or authors identities will be very small because of the small numbers of articles. It is expected that the proportion of articles with a diverse authorship will not exceed one third of the submissions in each groups. Ethics committee The protocol has been exempted from institutional review board by the IRB of Queens College CUNY, where the editor in chief and PI of the supporting grant has his primary appointment (Appendix B).

Phase 2/3 Adaptive Study of VX-147 in Adult and Pediatric Participants With APOL1- Mediated Proteinuric Kidney Disease

mFOLFIRINOX Versus mFOLFOX With or Without Nivolumab for the Treatment of Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic HER2 Negative Esophageal, Gastroesophageal Junction, and Gastric Adenocarcinoma

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To determine if overall survival (OS) is improved in patients who received mFOLFIRINOX +/- nivolumab in comparison to FOLFOX +/- nivolumab as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare other indices of efficacy, including progression-free survival, objective response rates and duration of response between both treatment arms. II. To evaluate safety and tolerability associated with treatment in each of the treatment arms. III. To evaluate the proportion of patients receiving second line of therapy in both arms. IV. To evaluate tolerability of the treatment in both arms using Patient Reported Outcomes-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. Exploratory correlative markers will also be measured and evaluated within and between arms to better assess mechanisms and prognostic impact of markers on impact. These will include baseline PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) and cell free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) before and after treatment. II. To evaluate and assess the feasibility and compliance associated with not centrally collecting perceived attribution of protocol treatment to reported adverse events. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive fluorouracil intravenously (IV), leucovorin calcium IV, oxaliplatin IV, and irinotecan IV on study and nivolumab IV as clinically indicated. Patients undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a computed tomography (CT) scan throughout the trial. Patients may also undergo blood sample collection on study. ARM II: Patients receive fluorouracil IV, leucovorin calcium IV, and oxaliplatin IV on study and nivolumab IV as clinically indicated. Patients undergo MRI and a CT scan throughout the trial. Patients may also undergo blood sample collection on study.

Comparison of Chemotherapy Before and After Surgery Versus After Surgery Alone for the Treatment of Gallbladder Cancer

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To determine the difference in overall survival (OS) for patients given neoadjuvant gemcitabine hydrochloride (gemcitabine) and cisplatin prior to re-resection followed by adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin compared to patients who receive only adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin after re-resection for incidental gallbladder cancer (IGBC). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare the incidence of residual disease at the time of re-resection between patients with IGBC who receive perioperative chemotherapy prior to re-resection and those who receive only adjuvant chemotherapy after re-resection. II. To assess the clinical effect of preoperative chemotherapy compared to upfront re-resection on resectability among 3 cohorts: all enrolled patients, all patients who undergo staging laparoscopy, and all patients who undergo laparotomy. III. To determine the difference in progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with IGBC who receive perioperative chemotherapy prior to and after re-resection compared to patients who receive only adjuvant chemotherapy after re-resection. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Within 4 weeks of randomization, patients undergo surgery to remove part of the liver, the lymph nodes around the liver, and possibly the bile ducts. Patients then receive gemcitabine intravenously (IV) over 30 minutes and cisplatin IV over 30 minutes-24 hours on days 1 and 8. Treatment repeats every 21 days for up to 8 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients receive gemcitabine IV over 30 minutes and cisplatin over 30 minutes-24 hours on days 1 and 8. Treatment repeats every 21 days for 4 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Approximately 4-8 weeks after completion of chemotherapy, patients whose disease has not spread to other places in the body (metastasized) undergo surgery as in Arm I. Patients with successful surgery then resume treatment with gemcitabine IV and cisplatin IV on days 1 and 8. Treatment repeats every 21 days for up to 4 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 3 months for 2 years, then every 6 months for 1 year after surgery or until disease recurrence, whichever comes first, for up to 5 years.

Two Studies for Patients With High Risk Prostate Cancer Testing Less Intense Treatment for Patients With a Low Gene Risk Score and Testing a More Intense Treatment for Patients With a High Gene Risk Score, The PREDICT-RT Trial

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To determine whether men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high risk prostate cancer who are in the lower 2/3 of Decipher genomic risk (=< 0.85) can be treated with 12 months androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus radiation therapy (RT) instead of 24 months ADT+RT and experience non-inferior metastasis-free survival. (De-intensification study) II. To determine whether men with NCCN high risk prostate cancer who are in the upper 1/3 of Decipher genomic risk (> 0.85) or have node-positive disease by conventional imaging (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] scan) will have a superior metastasis-free survival (MFS) through treatment intensification with apalutamide added to the standard of RT plus 24 month ADT. (Intensification study) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare overall survival (OS) between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) II. To compare time to prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure or start of salvage treatment between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) III. To compare PSA failure-free survival with non-castrate testosterone and no additional therapies between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) IV. To compare MFS judged based on either standard or molecular imaging between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) V. To compare prostate cancer-specific mortality between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) VI. To compare testosterone levels at the time of PSA failure and metastases between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) VII. To compare time to testosterone recovery (defined as a T > 200) between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) VIII. To compare adverse events, both clinician-reported using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version (v) 5.0 and patient-reported using Patient Reported Outcome (PRO)-CTCAE items, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare changes in cardio-metabolic markers, including body mass index, and waist circumference, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) II. To develop a machine learning/artificial intelligence algorithm for radiotherapy quality assurance. (De-intensification and Intensification studies) III. To perform future translational correlative studies using biological and imaging data. (De-intensification and intensification studies) IV. Impact of position emission tomography (PET) use, measured by the proportion of times each type of imaging was used, in high-risk prostate cancer. (De-intensification and intensification studies) PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES OBJECTIVES: PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare sexual and hormonal function related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) II. To compare fatigue, as measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue instrument, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare depression, as measured by the PROMIS-depression, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) II. To compare depression, as measured by the PROMIS-depression, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare cognition, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Cognitive (FACT-Cog) perceived cognitive abilities subscale, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) II. To compare bowel and urinary function related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) III. To compare fatigue, as measured by the PROMIS-Fatigue instrument, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) IV. To compare sexual and hormonal function related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) V. To compare bowel and urinary function related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) VI. To compare cognition, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Cognitive (FACT-Cog) perceived cognitive abilities subscale, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 4 arms. DE-INTENSIFICATION STUDY (DECIPHER SCORE =< 0.85): ARM I: Patients undergo radiation therapy (RT) over 2-11 weeks and receive ADT (consisting of either leuprolide, goserelin, triptorelin, degarelix, buserelin, histrelin, or relugolix and bicalutamide or flutamide) for 24 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients undergo RT over 2-11 weeks and receive ADT (consisting of either leuprolide, goserelin, triptorelin, degarelix, buserelin, histrelin, or relugolix and bicalutamide or flutamide) for 12 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. INTENSIFICATION STUDY (DECIPHER SCORE > 0.85 OR NODE POSITIVE): ARM III: Patients undergo RT over 2-11 weeks and receive ADT (consisting of either leuprolide, goserelin, triptorelin, degarelix, buserelin, histrelin, or relugolix and bicalutamide or flutamide) for 24 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM IV: Patients undergo RT over 2-11 weeks and receive ADT (consisting of either leuprolide, goserelin, triptorelin, degarelix, buserelin, histrelin, or relugolix) for 24 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also receive apalutamide orally (PO) once daily (QD). Treatment repeats every 90 days for up to 8 cycles (24 months) in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients undergo bone scan, positron emission tomography (PET) scan, computed tomography (CT) scan, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at screening and as clinically indicated and may optionally undergo blood sample collection throughout the study.

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.

A Global Study of Volrustomig (MEDI5752) Plus Chemotherapy Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Participants With Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Adult patients with a histologically or cytologically documented metastatic NSCLC, with tumors that lack activating EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 alterations are eligible for enrollment. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive treatment with volrustomig + chemotherapy or pembrolizumab + chemotherapy. Tumor evaluation scans will be performed until disease progression as efficacy assessment. All patients will be followed for survival until the end of the study. An data monitoring committee (DMC) composed of independent experts will be convened to confirm the safety and tolerability of the proposed dose and schedule.

A Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of RO7790121 for Induction and Maintenance Therapy in Participants With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis

Testing the Use of the Usual Chemotherapy Before and After Surgery for Removable Pancreatic Cancer

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate and compare overall survival (OS) in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, leucovorin calcium and oxaliplatin (modified [m]FOLFIRINOX) and surgery versus up-front surgery followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate and compare disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative mFOLFIRINOX and surgery versus up-front surgery followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. II. To evaluate and compare time to locoregional recurrence (TLR) in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative mFOLFIRINOX and surgery versus up-front surgery followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. III. To evaluate and compare time to distant metastases (TDM) in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative mFOLFIRINOX and surgery versus up-front surgery followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. IV. To evaluate and compare the R0 resection rate in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative mFOLFIRINOX and surgery versus up-front surgery followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. V. To evaluate and compare rate of unresectability in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative mFOLFIRINOX and surgery versus up-front surgery followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. VI. To evaluate rate of pathologic complete response in patients randomized to the perioperative therapy arm. VII. To evaluate and compare mFOLFIRINOX dose intensity delivered and number of cycles received in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative mFOLFIRINOX and surgery versus up-front surgery followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. VIII. To evaluate and compare adverse event profile in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative mFOLFIRINOX and surgery versus up-front surgery followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. IX. To compare physical functioning, nausea/vomiting, and diarrhea, as measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) between patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative mFOLFIRINOX and surgery versus up-front surgery followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. X. To prospectively assess the influence of diet, body mass index, weight loss, physical activity, and other lifestyle habits on the disease-free survival and overall survival among patients with localized pancreatic cancers. XI. To assess the influence of diet, obesity, physical activity, and other lifestyle habits on the risk of toxicity associated with chemotherapy. XII. To evaluate the ability of computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics in distinguishing post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) fibrosis from viable tumor in patients randomized to the perioperative therapy arm. XIII. To determine whether CT-based radiomics retrieved from baseline examination may act as non-invasive predictors of survival outcome in patients randomized to the adjuvant therapy arm. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive oxaliplatin intravenously (IV) over 2 hours, irinotecan hydrochloride IV over 90 minutes, and leucovorin calcium over 2 hours on day 1, and fluorouracil IV over 46-48 hours on days 1-3. Treatment repeats every 14 days for 8 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Within 2-8 weeks of completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, patients undergo surgical resection. Patients then receive oxaliplatin IV over 2 hours, irinotecan hydrochloride IV over 90 minutes, and leucovorin calcium over 2 hours on day 1, and fluorouracil IV over 46-48 hours on days 1-3. Treatment repeats every 14 days for 4 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients undergo surgical resection. Beginning 3-12 weeks after surgery, patients then receive oxaliplatin IV over 2 hours, irinotecan hydrochloride IV over 90 minutes, and leucovorin calcium over 2 hours on day 1, and fluorouracil IV over 46-48 hours on days 1-3. Treatment repeats every 14 days for 12 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up for 6 years.