Clinical Trials Actively Recruiting

Objective:

Primary Objectives:

• To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicities
  (DLTs) for combination of ATR inhibitor (M1774) and BET inhibitor (ZEN003694) in
  women with recurrent clear cell, endometrioid, and platinum resistant high grade serous
  ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) and clear cell and endometrioid endometrial carcinoma
  irrespective of ARID1A status (PART I).
• To determine safety and tolerability in ARID1A pathogenic alteration (ARID1AMUT) and
  ARID1A wildtype (ARID1AWT) cohorts (ARID1A is an integral biomarker) in an
  expansion phase (PART II).
• To determine change in pharmacodynamic biomarker expression of ƔH2AX (for ATR
  inhibition, integral biomarker) from pre-treatment and on-treatment tumor samples in
  ARID1AMUT and ARID1AWT expansion cohorts by immunohistochemistry (IHC) (PART
  II).

Secondary Objectives:

• To evaluate change in pharmacodynamic biomarker expression of cmyc (for BET inhibition,
  integrated biomarker) from pre-treatment and on-treatment tumor samples in ARID1AMUT
  and ARID1AWT expansion cohorts by Digital Spatial Profiling (DSP) (PART II).
• To evaluate change in pharmacodynamic biomarker expression of ƔH2AX (for ATR
  inhibition, integrated biomarker) from pre-treatment and on-treatment tumor samples in
  ARID1AMUT and ARID1AWT expansion cohorts by DSP (PART II).
• To investigate if ARID1A protein by IHC and DSP correlates with ARID1A pathogenic
  alteration in pre-treatment tumor biopsy samples (PART II).
• To estimate objective response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) at 6 months in
  ARID1A pathogenic alteration and wildtype cohorts (PART II).

Objective:

Primary Objective(s):

• To compare progression-free survival in participants with metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (mPRCC) randomized to cabozantinib with atezolizumab versus cabozantinib alone.
   

Secondary Objective(s):

• To compare overall survival in participants with mPRCC randomized to cabozantinib with atezolizumab versus cabozantinib alone.
• To compare RECIST objective response rate (confirmed and unconfirmed, complete and partial response) in participants with mPRCC randomized to cabozantinib with atezolizumab versus cabozantinib alone.
• To evaluate the quantitative & qualitive adverse events observed in each treatment arm.

Objective:

Dual Primary Objectives:

• To compare progression-free survival (PFS) in frail or selected intermediate fit
  Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) participants treated with VRd-Lite
  induction followed by Lenalidomide maintenance (Arm 1) versus DRd induction
  followed by Lenalidomide maintenance (Arm 2).
• To compare overall survival (OS) in frail or selected intermediate fit NDMM
  participants treated with VRd-Lite induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance
  (Arm 1) versus DRd induction followed by lenalidomide and daratumumab and
  hyaluronidase-fihj maintenance (Arm 3).

Secondary Objectives

• To compare PFS in Arm 1 versus Arm 3
• To compare OS in Arm 1 versus Arm 2.
• To compare OS in Arm 2 versus Arm 3, contingent upon significant results from both dual primary endpoints in favor of the respective experimental arms.
• To compare the overall response rate (ORR) of Arm 1 against the ORR of Arm 2 and Arm 3.
• To assess the safety of Arm 1 with the safety of Arm 2 and Arm 3.
• To explore veinous and arterial thrombo-embolism (VTE) incidence in participants receiving lenalidomide during induction across the three study arms.
• To describe median time to response (CR or better per IMWG criteria, VGPR or better per IMWG criteria, PR or better per IMWG criteria) on the three study arms.

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• To compare major organ deterioration progression-free survival between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of this study.

Secondary Objectives

• To compare overall survival (OS) between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of this study.
• To compare rates of cardiac and renal organ responses between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of this study.
• To compare rates of cardiac and renal organ progression between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of the study.
• To compare the frequency and severity of toxicities between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of this study.
• To compare minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rates between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ACST arms of this study.

Objective:

Primary Objectives:

• To compare the progression-free survival in participants with relapsed/refractory
  large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma grade 3B with stable disease (SD)
  or partial remission (PR) on first imaging response by central review (day +30
  PET/CT scan) after commercial CD19 CAR T-cell therapy who are randomized to
  receive each consolidation therapy versus those that receive no consolidation
  therapy (i.e. control). Specifically, to compare the PFS of 1) mosunetuzumab
  consolidation to no consolidation, 2) polatuzumab vedotin consolidation to no
  consolidation, 3) mosunetuzumab + polatuzumab vedotin to no consolidation

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare overall survival (OS) in participants randomized to each consolidation
  treatment arm versus control.
• To compare the complete remission (CR) conversion rate up to one year in
  participants randomized to each consolidation arm versus control.
• To evaluate the treatment-related adverse events in participants randomized to
  each consolidation arm.
• To evaluate the association between total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV), SUV
  max, and sum product (SPD) of diameters by PET-CT at first imaging response
  with complete remission conversion up to one year in participants randomized to
  each consolidation arm as well as those randomized to control.
• To evaluate the overall response rate (ORR), CR rate, PFS, and OS of participants
  randomized to Arm 4 (observation) who have lymphoma progression within 12
  months of CAR T-cell infusion and subsequently ‘cross-over' to receive treatment
  with mosunetuzumab + polatuzumab vedotin.
• To estimate overall survival for all patients registered to this study.
• To assess the difference in overall survival between participants who achieved CR
  at first imaging (day +30) versus. those who did not achieve CR at first imaging.

Objective:
Primary Objective:

• To examine if letrozole monotherapy/maintenance is non-inferior to IV paclitaxel/carboplatin and maintenance letrozole with respect to PFS in women with stage II-IV primary low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum after primary surgical cytoreduction.

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare the nature, frequency and maximum degree of toxicity as assessed by CTCAE v5.0 for each treatment arm.
• To compare the relative frequency of objective tumor response in those with measurable disease after cytoreductive surgery for each treatment arm.
• To compare overall survival for each treatment arm.
• To compare the CT\L and L\L arms with respect to patients adherence to letrozole therapy as measured by pill counts.

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• To determine the efficacy, based on PFS, of mFOLFOX6/bevacizumab plus atezolizumab (combination) as compared to single agent atezolizumab.

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare the overall survival
• To compare the objective response rates (ORR) per RECIST 1.1
• To determine the safety profiles of single agent atezolizumab and the combination of mFOLFOX6 bevacizumab/atezolizumab in patients with dMMR/MSI-H mCRC
• To determine the duration of response
• To determine the duration of stable disease
• To evaluate the rate of progression-free survival at 12 months
• To evaluate the disease control rate (CR + PR + SD) at 12 months

Objective:

Primary Objectives:

De-Intensification Study:

• To determine whether men with NCCN high risk prostate cancer who are in the lower 2/3 of Decipher genomic risk (< 0.85) can be treated with 12 months ADT plus RT instead of 24 months ADT+RT and experience non-inferior metastasis-free survival.

Intensification Study:

• 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 (MRI or 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.

Secondary Objectives for both De-Intensification and Intensification Studies:

• 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).
• To compare time to 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).
• 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 deintensification arm  RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide).
• 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 plusapalutamide).
• 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).
• 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).
• 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).
• To compare adverse events, both clinician-reported using CTCAE v5.0 and patientreported using 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).

Objective:

Primary Objective:

De-Intensification Study:

• 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 RT alone instead of 6 months ADT + RT experience non-inferior rate of distant metastasis.

Intensification Study:

• 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.

Secondary Objectives:

• 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.
• To compare time to 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.
• 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).
• 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.
• 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.
• 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).
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• To compare fatigue, as measured by the 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.
• 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.

Objective:

Primary Objectives:

• To compare the overall survival in patients with stage II-IIIC inoperable nodepositive
  non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after image guided, motion-managed
  conventional radiotherapy to the primary tumor and nodal metastases (Arm 1) or after
  image guided, motion-managed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the
  primary tumor followed by conventionally fractionated radiotherapy to nodal
  metastases (Arm 2) both given with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy.
• To compare progression-free survival between the experimental arm (Arm 2) and
  control arm (Arm 1).

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare objective response rate (as defined by RECIST v 1.1) between the
  experimental arm and control arm
• To compare the rate of local control between the experimental arm and control arm
• To compare patterns of failure (primary, locoregional, or distant) between the
  experimental arm and control arm
• To compare changes in pulmonary function (FEV1 and DLCO assessed at
  randomization and at 6 and 12 months following completion of radiation therapy)
  between the experimental arm and control arm
• To compare changes in quality of life and patient-reported outcomes assessed from
  pre-treatment to 3 months following radiation therapy of each treatment arm
• To determine acute and late toxicity profiles of each treatment arm as measured by
  the CTCAEv5