Ibaraki, Higashiibaraki-gun, Japan

Testing the Use of Combination Therapy in Adult Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma, the EQUATE Trial

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To determine if bortezomib, daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj (daratumumab), lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Btz-DRd) consolidation followed by daratumumab and lenalidomide (DR) maintenance after standard induction therapy with daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) results in superior overall survival compared to DRd consolidation followed by DR maintenance, in minimal residual disease (MRD) positive patients. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To determine if Btz-DRd consolidation followed by DR maintenance after standard induction therapy with DRd results in superior overall survival compared to DRd consolidation followed by DR maintenance in MRD negative patients. II. To determine if Btz-DRd consolidation followed by DR maintenance after standard induction therapy with DRd results in superior progression-free survival compared to DRd consolidation followed by DR maintenance in both MRD positive and MRD negative patients. III. To describe and compare the incidence of toxicities during consolidation between Btz-DRd and DRd arms. IV. To assess the improvement in MRD negative rate with consolidation among patients who are MRD positive after induction. V. To assess the sustained MRD negative rate among patients who are MRD negative after induction. PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES (PRO) OBJECTIVES: I. To quantify the extent to which the addition of bortezomib to DRd over consolidation treatment contributes to neuropathy and associated physical and functional impairments. (Primary PRO Objective) II. To evaluate the rate of resolution of neurotoxicity and associated physical and functional impairments following completion of consolidation therapy. (Secondary PRO Objective) III. To investigate the relationship between MRD status and patient reported health-related quality of life outcomes. (Exploratory PRO Objective) IV. To evaluate attributes of select patient reported treatment-emergent symptomatic adverse events (PRO- Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]) longitudinally and compare responses with provider-reported adverse events. (Exploratory PRO Objective) V. To tabulate PRO compliance and completion rates. (Exploratory PRO Objective) IMAGING OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate the association between post-induction fludeoxyglucose F-18 (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and patient outcomes (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]). (Primary Imaging Objective) II. To evaluate the association between baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT and patient outcomes (PFS and OS). (Secondary Imaging Objective) III. To compare overall survival with the addition of Bortezomib to consolidation DRd therapy among 18F-FDG PET/CT-positive and 18F-FDG PET/CT-negative subgroups. (Secondary Imaging Objective) IV. To evaluate the ability of baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT to predict post-induction depth of response as measured by MRD assessment. (Secondary Imaging Objective) V. To evaluate the ability of post-induction 18F-FDG PET/CT to predict MRD conversion post-consolidation. (Secondary Imaging Objective) VI. To utilize 18F-FDG PET/CT, standard risk factors and clinical data to identify distinct subgroups with differing patient outcomes (PFS and OS). (Exploratory Imaging Objective) VII. To compare the various qualitative 18F-FDG PET/CT criteria to determine which criteria yields superior risk stratification. (Exploratory Imaging Objective) OUTLINE: ARM A (INDUCTION): All patients receive standard induction therapy comprising the following: daratumumab subcutaneously (SC) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-2, days 1 and 15 of cycles 3-6, and day 1 of cycles 7-9, lenalidomide orally (PO) daily on days 1-21, and dexamethasone PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Treatment repeats every 28 days for 9 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of standard induction therapy, patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM B: CONSOLIDATION: Patients receive bortezomib SC on days 1, 8, and 15, daratumumab SC on day 1, lenalidomide PO daily on days 1-21, and dexamethasone PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Treatment repeats every 28 days for 9 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. MAINTENANCE: Patients receive lenalidomide PO daily on days 1-21 and daratumumab SC on day 1. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM C: CONSOLIDATION: Patients receive daratumumab SC on day 1, lenalidomide PO daily on days 1-21, and dexamethasone PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Treatment repeats every 28 days for 9 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. MAINTENANCE: Patients receive lenalidomide PO daily on days 1-21, and daratumumab SC on day 1. Cycles repeats every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 3 months if less than 2 years from study entry, every 6 months if 2-5 years from study entry, then annually for up to 15 years from study entry.

Collection of Research Data and Samples From Patients Who Experience Immunotherapy Side Effects

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To establish a national biorepository including biospecimen and clinical data collections from patients treated with immuno-oncology (IO) therapeutics who experience one or more serious (grade 3-4) immune-related adverse events (irAEs), rare infections or hyperprogression (acceleration of tumor growth). OUTLINE: Patients undergo collection of tissue and blood samples (and optional stool samples from patients experiencing colitis) at the time of registration (within 72 hours of confirmation of one or more severe irAEs) and at 1 month after registration. Patients' medical records are also reviewed for up to 1 year.

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.

S1803, Lenalidomide +/- Daratumumab/rHuPh20 as Post-ASCT Maintenance for MM w/MRD to Direct Therapy Duration

Genetic Testing in Guiding Treatment for Patients With Brain Metastases

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To determine the activity of a CDK inhibitor in patients with progressive brain metastases derived from lung cancer, breast cancer, and other cancers harboring actionable genetic alterations associated with sensitivity to CDK inhibitors as measured by response rate (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology [RANO] criteria). II. To determine the activity of a PI3K inhibitor in patients with progressive brain metastases derived from lung cancer, breast cancer, and other cancers harboring actionable genetic alterations in the PI3K pathway as measured by response rate (RANO criteria). III: To determine the activity of an NTRK/ROS1 inhibitor in patients with progressive brain metastases derived from lung cancer harboring actionable NTRK/ROS1 gene fusions as measured by response rate (RANO criteria). IV. To determine the activity of an KRAS G12C inhibitor in patients with progressive brain metastases derived from lung cancer, and other cancers harboring a KRAS G12C mutation as measured by response rate (RANO criteria). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate the systemic response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. II. To evaluate the clinical benefit rate (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] + stable disease [SD]) by Brain Metastases (BM)-RANO for central nervous system (CNS) in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. III. To evaluate the clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + SD) by RECIST for extracranial disease in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. IV. To evaluate the duration of response by BM-RANO in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. V. To evaluate the duration of response by RECIST in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. VI. To evaluate the progression-free survival for intracranial disease in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. VII. To evaluate the progression-free survival for extracranial disease in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. VIII. To evaluate the site of first progression (CNS versus [vs] non-CNS) in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. IX. To evaluate the overall survival in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. X. To evaluate the toxicity profile of agents in patients with brain metastases in each of the cohorts determined by treatment and primary cancer type. OUTLINE: Patients are assigned to 1 of 4 arms. ARM I (CDK GENE MUTATION): Patients receive abemaciclib orally (PO) twice daily (BID) on days 1-28. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II (PI3K GENE MUTATION): Patients receive PI3K inhibitor paxalisib PO once daily (QD) on days 1-28. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM III (NTRK/ROS1 GENE MUTATION): Patients receive entrectinib PO QD on days 1-28. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM IV (KRAS G12C MUTATION): Patients receive adagrasib (MRTX849) PO BID on days 1-28. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 8 weeks for 2 years, then every 3 months for years 3-4, and then every 6 months thereafter for up to 5 years after registration.

Improving Adolescent and Young Adult Self-Reported Data in ECOG-ACRIN Trials

Primary Aim: Conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial with AYAs to determine the feasibility and acceptability of completing PROs informed by AYAs' priorities. AYAs will be consented and randomized to select five HRQOL domains from a dashboard (Choice PRO) at each assessment period or to five standard HRQOL domains (Fixed PRO; physical function, pain, cognitive function, social support, finances) at each assessment period. AYAs will complete baseline, 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessments which will include a combination of CATs and static short forms. Feasibility will be operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROs and ≥ 75% acceptability. Feasibility and acceptability will be compared between AYAs randomized to Choice PRO vs Fixed PRO. Adherence boosters (reminder calls, text messages) will be used to minimize missing data and evaluated as moderators. Exploratory Aim: Solicit AYA preferences for how their PRO data should be shared with them and/or their providers. To inform future research, AYAs will be asked if and how participants want their PRO data to be used by their medical teams as well as if and how participants want their PRO data to be shared with them and their families. The investigators anticipate PROMIS CATs will increase capacity for PRO data capture, AYAs randomized to Choice PRO, who are given the opportunity to choose which PRO domains to complete, will have less missing data. The investigators expect the majority of AYAs will want PRO feedback for themselves, their families, and their providers. Findings will promote and sustain the inclusion of PROs in clinical and supportive care trials, providing AYA's a voice and informing future patient-centered care tailored to the diverse needs of AYAs. By offering AYAs the opportunity to choose which PRO domains to complete based on relevance to their health-related quality of life, as opposed to completing domains pre-determined by the research team, the investigators raise the patient-centeredness of investigators assessment approach.

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.

Testing the Use of Chemotherapy After Surgery for High-Risk Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To evaluate recurrence-free survival (RFS) in participants with resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) randomized to treatment with capecitabine + temozolomide (CAPTEM) compared to observation only. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate overall survival (OS) in participants randomized to treatment with CAPTEM compared to observation only. II. To evaluate the safety and tolerability of CAPTEM compared to observation only. BANKING OBJECTIVE: I. To bank specimens for future correlative studies. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive capecitabine orally (PO) twice daily (BID) on days 1-14 and temozolomide PO once daily (QD) on days 10-14. Treatment repeats every 28 days for up to 4 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients undergo surveillance with no active treatment. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 6 months for 3 years and then annually until 5 years from randomization.

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.

Collecting Blood Samples From Patients With and Without Cancer to Evaluate Tests for Early Cancer Detection

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To provide a blinded reference set of cancer versus (vs.) non-cancer blood samples that will be used to validate assays for inclusion in a prospective clinical trial focused on utility of blood-based multi-cancer early detection. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. Evaluate test performance at the time of initial cancer diagnosis by tumor type. II. Evaluate test performance at the time of initial cancer diagnosis by clinical stage. OUTLINE: Participants complete a questionnaire at baseline. Participants undergo collection of blood samples at registration and at 12 months after registration. Patients with a cancer diagnosis may undergo collection of tissue samples at registration and 12 months after registration. After completion of study, participants are followed up at 1 year.