Cognitive Training for Cancer Related Cognitive Impairment in Breast Cancer Survivors
The goal of this trial is to determine the efficacy of advanced cognitive training for cancer survivors suffering from cancer- and cancer-treatment-related cognitive dysfunction. For millions of cancer survivors, cognitive dysfunction is a prevalent, severe, and persistent problem that has long been associated with poor work-related and health-related outcomes. Evidence suggests that a significant subset of breast cancer survivors (BCS) incur cognitive changes that may persist for years after treatment. Unfortunately, the scientific basis for managing these cognitive changes is extremely limited. Available evidence from pilot studies, including our work, suggests that advanced cognitive training, which is based on the principles of neuroplasticity (ability of brain neurons to re-organize and form new neural networks), may be a viable treatment option. However, previous trials to date have been limited by lack of attention-controlled designs, small samples of BCS, or limited outcome measures. Therefore, to overcome limitations of past studies and build on our pilot results, the purpose of this 2-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trial is to conduct a full-scale efficacy trial to compare advanced cognitive training to attention control in BCS.
Phase
N/ASpan
190 weeksSponsor
NRG OncologyWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting
Shorter Chemo-Immunotherapy Without Anthracycline Drugs for Early-Stage Triple Negative Breast Cancer
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To assess whether participants with early stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) randomized to receive anthracycline-free, taxane-platinum neoadjuvant chemotherapy with pembrolizumab have non-inferior breast cancer event-free survival (BC-EFS) compared to participants randomized to taxane-platinum-anthracycline neoadjuvant chemotherapy with pembrolizumab. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare pathological complete response (pCR) and residual cancer burden (RCB) rates by randomized arm. II. To compare pCR and RCB rates between randomized arms by tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) status. III. To compare BC-EFS between randomized arms in the TIL-enriched and non-TIL enriched subgroups. IV. To compare distant relapse-free survival and overall survival by randomized arm. V. To compare invasive breast cancer-free survival after surgery between randomized arms in pCR and residual disease groups. VI. To compare the safety and tolerability by randomized arm among those that initiate therapy. TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE OBJECTIVE: I. To evaluate concordance and accuracy of an automated stromal TIL (sTIL) algorithm versus (vs.) central pathologist assessed sTILs quantification. PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME (PRO) OBJECTIVES: I. To compare patient-reported fatigue at 3 weeks after the last neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) dose and, separately, at 18 months after randomization, using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Fatigue-7a in participants undergoing NAST with taxane-platinum-anthracycline chemo-immunotherapy vs taxane-platinum chemo-immunotherapy. (Quality of Life, Primary) II. To compare physical function experienced by participants undergoing neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (NAST) with taxane-platinum-anthracycline chemo-immunotherapy vs taxane-platinum chemo-immunotherapy, within 3-5 weeks post last neoadjuvant systemic therapy dose using the PROMIS-29 Profile physical function subscale score. (Quality of Life, Secondary) III. To compare physical function experienced by participants undergoing NAST taxane-platinum-anthracycline chemo-immunotherapy vs taxane-platinum chemo-immunotherapy at 18 months post registration using the PROMIS-29 Profile physical function subscale score. (Quality of Life, Secondary) IV. To compare other PROMIS-29 Profile subscale scores (sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, social, pain interference, and pain sensitivity) and GP5 question response by arm within 3-5 weeks post last neoadjuvant systemic therapy dose and at 18 months post registration. (Quality of Life, Exploratory) V. To compare the GP-5 item scores by arm within 3-5 weeks post last neoadjuvant systemic therapy dose and at 18 months post registration. (Quality of Life, Exploratory) VI. To compare select patient-reported outcomes using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) by arm. (Patient-Reported Symptoms of Treatment) BANKING OBJECTIVE: I. To bank physical specimens and digital slides for future correlative studies. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive paclitaxel intravenously (IV), carboplatin IV, and pembrolizumab IV on study. Patients then receive doxorubicin IV, cyclophosphamide IV, and pembrolizumab IV on study. Patients then undergo surgery. Patients may receive pembrolizumab after surgery. Patients may optionally undergo collection of blood samples throughout the trial. ARM II: Patients receive docetaxel IV, carboplatin IV, and pembrolizumab IV on study. Patients then undergo surgery. Patients may receive pembrolizumab after surgery. Patients may optionally undergo collection of blood samples throughout the trial. Patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually until 5 years from registration.
Phase
3Span
503 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting
Colon Adjuvant Chemotherapy Based on Evaluation of Residual Disease
Currently, there are no biomarkers validated prospectively in randomized studies for resected colon cancer to determine need for adjuvant chemotherapy. However, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) shed into the bloodstream represents a highly specific and sensitive approach (especially with serial monitoring) for identifying microscopic or residual tumor cells in colon cancer patients and may outperform traditional clinical and pathological features in prognosticating risk for recurrence. Colon cancer patients who do not have detectable ctDNA (ctDNA-) are at a much lower risk of recurrence and may not need adjuvant chemotherapy. Furthermore, for colon cancer pts with detectable ctDNA (ctDNA+) who are at a very high risk of recurrence, the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimen has not been established. We hypothesize that for pts whose colon cancer has been resected, ctDNA status may be used to risk stratify for making decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy.
Phase
2/3Span
418 weeksSponsor
NRG OncologyWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting
Two Studies for Patients With Unfavorable Intermediate 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 Higher Gene Risk Score, The Guidance Trial
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To determine whether men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) prostate cancer and lower Decipher genomic risk (Decipher score < 0.40) treated with radiation therapy (RT) alone instead of 6 months androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + RT experience non-inferior rate of distant metastasis. (De-intensification study) II. To determine whether men with NCCN UIR prostate cancer who are in the higher genomic risk (Decipher score >= 0.40) will have a superior metastasis-free survival through treatment intensification with darolutamide added to the standard of RT plus 6 months ADT. (Intensification study) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare overall survival (OS) between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. II. To compare time to prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. III. To compare metastasis free survival (MFS) based on conventional imaging between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and de-intensification intervention (RT alone). IV. To compare MFS based on either conventional and/or molecular imaging between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. V. To compare cumulative incidence of locoregional failure based upon conventional imaging and/ or biopsy between standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. VI. To compare cumulative incidence of distant metastasis based upon conventional imaging between standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and intensification intervention (RT plus 6 months ADT plus darolutamide). VII. To compare cumulative incidence of distant metastasis based upon either conventional and/or molecular imaging between standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. VIII. To compare prostate cancer-specific mortality between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. IX. To compare sexual and hormonal related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. X. To compare fatigue, as measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue instrument, between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. XI. 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 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare changes in cardio-metabolic markers, including body mass index, lipids, blood glucose, complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), and hemoglobin (Hgb) A1c, between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. II. To compare PSA failure-free survival with non-castrate testosterone and no additional therapies between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. III. To compare cumulative incidence of locoregional failure based upon either conventional and/or molecular imaging between standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. IV. To compare castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. 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 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. VI. To compare time to testosterone recovery (defined as a T > 200ng/dL) between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. VII. To compare health utilities, as measured by the European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L), between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. VIII. To develop and assess a machine learning/artificial intelligence algorithm for radiotherapy planning and/or quality assurance. IX. To perform future translational correlative studies using biological data, Decipher results, and clinical outcomes. OUTLINE: DE-INTENSIFICATION STUDY: Patients with Decipher score < 0.40 are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients undergo radiation therapy (RT) using a recognized regimen (2-3 days a week or 5 days a week for 2-11 weeks) in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients undergo RT as Arm I. Patients also receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) consisting of leuprolide, goserelin, buserelin, histrelin, triptorelin, degarelix, or relugolix at the discretion of the treating physician, for 6 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients may also receive bicalutamide or flutamide for 0, 30 or 180 days. INTENSIFICATION STUDY: Patients with Decipher score >= 0.40 are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM III: Patients receive treatment as in Arm II. ARM IV: Patients receive RT and ADT as in Arm II. Patients also receive darolutamide orally (PO) twice daily (BID). Treatment repeats every 90 days for up to 2 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months.
Phase
3Span
258 weeksSponsor
NRG OncologyWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting
LEAD IT! An App to Enable Persons With Early Stage Dementia to Lead Group Activities for Their Peers
Approximately one million persons with dementia (PWD) reside in long term care (LTC), and this figure is expected to double over the next 20 years. Dementia interferes with a person's ability to function independently and is also associated with a variety of responsive behaviors. In fact, researchers have found that 97% of PWD exhibit at least one challenging behavior over the course of a five-year period. Persons with early stage dementia (PESD) also often experience an existential crisis, as they feel a loss of purpose in life. While the remaining strengths of PESD have been known for some time, few opportunities for meaningful social roles exist. So, there is an urgent need to create interventions that enable PESD to fill such roles and capitalize on their many remaining skills. The product under consideration in this project addresses this critical need through the use of an evidence-based, resident-led group activity program. Since many PESD reside in LTC, the role of group activity leader is a sensible option for providing a meaningful social role. To this end, the Principal Investigator of this project managed two studies in which PESD served as group activity leaders for other PWD. These studies demonstrated that (1) PESD can successfully serve as activity leaders if appropriate materials/processes are used; (2) resident-led programming produced higher levels of positive engagement than staff-led activities-i.e., PESD were more effective than staff; (3) minimal training is needed for the resident-leaders (RLs) and all training must occur "on the floor"; (4) leaders found the roles meaningful; and (5) responsive behaviors were reduced in some leaders. In these studies, resident-led activities materials were hard-copy (paper-based) in nature. Despite the positive outcomes, resident-led programming was never commercialized or disseminated on a large scale, largely due to the hard-copy (printed) nature of the activity materials. Given the success of resident-led programming, the increased prevalence of dementia, and the push for early detection of dementia, there is an urgent need and strong commercialization potential for a product that enables PESD to serve as group leaders in resident-led activities. Since high-speed internet, tablets, and apps have become ubiquitous, one promising way to deploy such a product is through a tablet-based app. With this in mind, in a Phase 1 SBIR, the Principal Investigator of this project developed and evaluated an Alpha Version of a tablet-based app called LEAD IT!, which enables PESD to implement resident-led activities. The Phase 1 project demonstrated that (1) PESD were capable of using the app to facilitate activities, (2) PWD participating in such activities-i.e., resident-players (RPs)-exhibited high levels of positive engagement, and (3) both RLs and RPs reported high satisfaction with the app. The proposed Phase 2 project will involve the further development and evaluation of LEAD IT!, as well as examine the clinical outcomes of long-term use of the app by both RLs and RPs. The Specific Aims of the proposed Phase 2 project are to: 1. Develop improved Beta 1 and Beta 2 Versions of LEAD IT! with sufficient content to facilitate six activities twice per week for 4.5 months. During Months 1-7, the Beta 1 version of the app will be created by the study's Development Team (DT). During Months 13-15, the DT will create an improved Beta 2 version, based on lessons learned in Beta 1 testing. 2. Examine the extent to which RLs are able to serve as leaders while using LEAD IT! During all intervention sessions, researchers will track the extent to which each RL follows key steps involved in leading each activity. RLs will be considered successful if they follow the steps 80% of the time and require less staff assistance on less than 20% of steps. 3. Examine the effects of resident-led LEAD IT! programming on RPs. Two quasi-experiments will be conducted. Experiment #1, which will test the Beta 1 version of LEAD IT!, will use a pre-post design. Proximal (immediate) effects will be assessed by examining RP's levels of engagement/affect during baseline (standard) activities and again during LEAD IT! activities. It is hypothesized that LEAD IT! will result in higher quality engagement than baseline activities. Experiment #2, which will test the Beta 2 version of the app, will be a cluster randomized trial (CRT), consisting of pre- and post-intervention measurements of a Treatment Group (TG)-which will consist of PWD who receive the intervention - and a Control Group (CG) - which will consist of PWD who receive standard programming / care. Since Experiment #2 will occur after all improvements to the app have been made, it will represent the definitive trial of the LEAD IT! app's impact on PWD. For proximal (immediate) measures, it is anticipated that there will be a Group x Time interaction effect, with TG participants exhibiting significantly greater increases in positive forms of engagement, as compared to CG participants. For distal measures, it is anticipated that there will be a Group x Time interaction effect, with TG participants exhibiting significantly greater increases in quality of life (based upon the DEMQOL) at treatment, as compared to CG participants. 4. Examine PWD and staff satisfaction with LEAD IT! This will be achieved by eliciting feedback from PWD and staff members. PWD and staff members will be considered "highly satisfied" with the app if 85% are satisfied with the app.
Phase
2Span
105 weeksSponsor
Hearthstone Alzheimer CareWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting
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 NetworkWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting
Testing the Addition of Stereotactic Radiation Therapy With Immune Therapy for the Treatment of Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer, SAMURAI Study
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To determine whether the addition of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to the primary tumor in combination with immunotherapy improves outcomes compared to immunotherapy alone in patients with metastatic, unresected, renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The primary endpoint is nephrectomy and radiographic progression-free survival (nrPFS) with progression determined as per iRECIST criteria. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess the safety, toxicity and tolerability of the two treatment strategies as defined by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5 in each treatment arm. II. To assess the objective response rate (ORR) by Immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST) in each treatment arm. III. Nephrectomy and radiographic progression-free survival excluding nephrectomies that were performed for non-protocol specified indications (nephrectomy and radiographic progression-free survival [nrPFS]2). IV. Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). V. To assess overall survival (OS) in each treatment arm. VI. To assess the time to subsequent second-line therapy or death in each treatment arm. VII. To assess the rate of cytoreductive nephrectomy in each treatment arm. VIII. To assess treatment-free survival in patients who discontinue therapy for reason other than radiographic disease progression. IX. To assess the ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and iRECIST in the primary renal mass. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess composite nrPFS in the predefined histological subgroups below: Ia. Clear cell versus non-clear cell histology. Ib. International Metastatic RCC database consortium (IMDC) intermediate versus poor risk group. Ic. Systemic treatment with immunotherapy-immunotherapy combination versus immunotherapy-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy combination. Id. Sarcomatoid versus non sarcomatoid variant. II. To identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers of response to SABR in the context of immunotherapy based treatment via assessment of tissue and blood based biomarkers. III. To evaluate the abscopal effect of SABR with systemic therapy. IIIa. Compare ORR in non-irradiated target lesions in the control arm patients undergoing immunotherapy alone to the experimental arm undergoing SABR + immunotherapy. IV. To evaluate the impact of treatment on level of inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombus. V. To compare accruing center identified iRECIST progression and centrally identified iRECIST progression events on computed tomography (CT). OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive one of the following immunotherapy regimens per physician discretion: nivolumab intravenously (IV) over 30 minutes and ipilimumab IV over 30 minutes every 3 weeks for 4 doses followed by nivolumab IV over 30 minutes every 2 or 4 weeks; pembrolizumab IV over 30 minutes every 3 or 6 weeks and axitinib orally (PO) twice daily (BID); avelumab IV over 60 minutes every 2 weeks and axitinib PO BID; nivolumab IV over 30 minutes every 2 or 4 weeks and cabozantinib PO once daily (QD); OR pembrolizumab IV over 30 minutes every 3 or 6 weeks and lenvatinib PO QD. Treatment with immunotherapy continues in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients undergo SABR on 3 different days over 1-3 weeks and receive immunotherapy as in Arm I. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 6 months for 5 years, and then annually for 3 years.
Phase
2Span
520 weeksSponsor
NRG OncologyWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting
T-DM1 and Tucatinib Compared with T-DM1 Alone in Preventing Relapses in People with High Risk HER2-Positive Breast Cancer, the CompassHER2 RD Trial
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To determine if the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with T-DM1 and tucatinib is superior to the iDFS in the control arm (T-DM1 + placebo) when administered to high risk patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and residual disease after neoadjuvant HER2-directed therapy. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate whether treatment with tucatinib plus T-DM1 compared to treatment with T-DM1 alone (T-DM1 plus placebo) improves the following: Ia. Breast cancer free survival (BCFS). Ib. Distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS). Ic. Brain metastases-free survival (BMFS). Id. Overall survival (OS). II. To evaluate whether treatment with tucatinib plus T-DM1 compared to treatment with T-DM1 alone (T-DM1 plus placebo) reduces the incidence of brain metastases. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive T-DM1 intravenously (IV) over 30-90 minutes on day 1 and placebo orally (PO) twice daily (BID) on days 1-21. Treatment repeats every 21 days for up to 14 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients receive T-DM1 IV over 30-90 minutes on day 1 and tucatinib PO BID on days 1-21. Treatment repeats every 21 days for up to 14 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up at 30 days, then every 6 months for 10 years.
Phase
3Span
744 weeksSponsor
Alliance for Clinical Trials in OncologyWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting
Additional Support Program Via Text Messaging and Telephone-Based Counseling for Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Hormonal Therapy
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. Compare endocrine therapy (ET) adherence at 12 months in diverse women exposed to text message reminders (TMR)-only, telephone-based motivational interviewing counseling (MI)-only, or both (TMR+MI), versus usual care. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: l. Compare endocrine therapy (ET) adherence at 24 months in diverse women exposed to text message reminders (TMR)-only, telephone-based motivational interviewing counseling (MI)-only, or both (TMR+MI), versus usual care. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 4 arms. ARM I (TMR): Patients receive online educational information about ET at the start of their ET medication. Patients also receive daily text message reminders to take their ET medication and monthly text messages about how they are doing with taking their ET medication. These text messages continue for 9 months. ARM II (MI): Patients receive online educational information about ET at the start of their ET medication. Patients also receive a total of 5 motivational interviewing counseling sessions via telephone over 30-90 minutes for up to 9 months. These sessions are designed to support patients while they take their ET medication, develop health goals, and stay on track in achieving those goals. ARM III (TMR + MI): Patients receive online educational information about ET at the start of their ET medication. Patients also receive text messages as in Arm I and motivational interviewing counseling sessions as in Arm II. ARM IV (ENHANCED USUAL CARE): Patients attend usual care clinic visits every 3-6 months and receive online educational information about ET at the start of their ET medication. Patients also receive optional online information about living a healthy life after breast cancer. After completion of study participation, patients are followed up for up to 24 months.
Phase
3Span
298 weeksSponsor
Alliance for Clinical Trials in OncologyWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting
S1501 Carvedilol in Preventing Cardiac Toxicity in Patients With Metastatic HER-2-Positive Breast Cancer
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess whether prophylactic beta blocker therapy with carvedilol compared with no intervention reduces the risk of subsequent cardiac dysfunction in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving trastuzumab?based HER-2 targeted therapy. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess whether prophylactic beta blocker therapy with carvedilol compared with no intervention reduces the risk of predefined subsequent cardiac events in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving trastuzumab?based HER-2 targeted therapy. II. To evaluate if prophylactic carvedilol compared with no intervention results in a longer time to first interruption of trastuzumab?based HER-2 targeted therapy due to either cardiac dysfunction or events. III. To assess whether prophylactic beta blocker therapy with carvedilol compared with no intervention reduces the risk of subsequent cardiac dysfunction OR events in this population. IV. To establish and prospectively collect a predefined panel of baseline core cardiovascular measures and develop a predictive model of cardiac dysfunction. V. To evaluate the rate of cardiac dysfunction in an observational arm consisting of individuals otherwise eligible for the study except for use of beta blockers, angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for other medical reasons. TERTIARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate the isoleucine (lle) 655 valine (Val) and and alanine (Ala)ll70 proline (Pro) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the HER-2 gene as a predictive biomarker of study-defined cardiac dysfunction. II. To evaluate plasma neuregulin-1 at baseline and over study time as a predictive biomarker of study-defined cardiac dysfunction. III. To evaluate the feasibility of performing serial left ventricular strain in a National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) group setting, with the goal of 75% of patients contributing both a baseline and at least one follow-up strain measurement. IV. To bank blood for future translational medicine studies such as brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), additional SNPs, and high sensitivity troponin. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. Patients taking beta blocker, ARB, or ACE inhibitor at registration are assigned to Arm III. ARM I: Patients not taking beta blocker, ARB, or ACE inhibitor at registration receive carvedilol orally (PO) twice daily (BID). Courses repeat every 12 weeks for 108 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients not taking beta blocker, ARB, or ACE inhibitor at registration receive no study intervention for up to 108 weeks. ARM III: Patients undergo observation for up to 108 weeks. After completion of study, patients are followed up for up to 108 weeks.
Phase
3Span
515 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkWinchester, Massachusetts
Recruiting