Clinical Trials Actively Recruiting

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.

Primary Objective:

• 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:

• To summarize reports of serious and unexpected high-grade (≥ Grade 3) treatment-related adverse events determined by the treating physician within each treatment arm.

Primary Objective:

• To compare the non-inferiority of bilateral salpingectomy (BLS) with delayed oophorectomy to bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer among women with deleterious BRCA1 germ-line mutations.

Secondary Objectives:

• To prospectively assess estrogen deprivation symptoms in BLS patients as measured by the FACTES sub-scale compared to women in the BSO arm.
• To determine if health-related QOL (FACT) is negatively impacted by menopausal symptoms (menopausal symptom checklist-MSCL), sexual dysfunction (FSFI), and cancer distress (IES) in women who have undergone BLS, in comparison to normative data (MSCL/FACT-ES) and data from BSO patients.
• To assess medical decision making, as measured by the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Decision Regret Scale (DRS), and determine factors associated with the risk of reducing surgical treatment choice.
• To assess adverse events, graded using CTCAE v5.0.

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).

Primary Objective:

• To compare the progression-free survival (PFS) of the combination of avutometinib plus defactinib vs Investigator’s Choice of Treatment (ICT) in patients with recurrent LGSOC

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare the combination of avutometinib plus defactinib vs ICT in patients with recurrent LGSOC with regard to additional efficacy parameters
• To characterize the safety and tolerability of combination avutometinib plus defactinib vs ICT in patients with recurrent LGSOC
• To determine the exposure of avutometinib and defactinib in patients with recurrent LGSOC treated with combination of avutometinib plus defactinib
• To assess the health-related quality of life and disease related symptoms in patients with recurrent LGSOC treated with combination avutometinib plus defactinib vs ICT

Primary Objectives:

• To evaluate the efficacy of selinexor compared to placebo as maintenance therapy

Key Secondary Objectives:

• To compare overall OS in selinexor and placebo arms

Secondary Objectives:

• To evaluate the safety and tolerability of selinexor
• To compare selinexor and placebo for time to first subsequent therapy
• To compare selinexor and placebo for time to second subsequent therapy
• To compare selinexor and placebo for time until second progression
• To assess the efficacy of selinexor compared to placebo, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR)
• To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes

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.

Primary Objective:

• To evaluate whether breast conservation surgery and endocrine therapy results in a non-inferior rate of invasive or non-invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) compared to breast conservation with breast radiation and endocrine therapy.

Secondary Objectives:

• To evaluate whether breast conservation surgery and endocrine therapy inclusive of any second breast conservation surgery for salvage of IBTR results in a non-inferior rate of overall breast conservation compared to breast conserving surgery, endocrine therapy and radiation for IBTR.
• To evaluate whether breast conservation surgery and endocrine therapy results in a non-inferior rate of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IIBTR) compared to breast conservation, breast radiation, and endocrine therapy.
• To evaluate whether breast conservation surgery and endocrine therapy results in a non-inferior relapse free interval (RFI) compared to breast conservation, breast radiation, and endocrine therapy.
• To evaluate whether breast conservation surgery and endocrine therapy results in a non-inferior distant disease-free survival(DDFS) compared to breast conservation, breast radiation, and endocrine therapy.
• To evaluate whether breast conservation surgery and endocrine therapy results in a non-inferior overall survival (OS) compared to breast conservation, breast radiation, and endocrine therapy.
• To evaluate whether there is a difference in patient-reported breast pain in women who do and do not receive breast radiation.
• To evaluate whether there is a difference in patient-reported worry about recurrence in women who do and do not receive breast radiation.
• To evaluate whether adherence to endocrine therapy following breast conservation surgery alone is non inferior compared to endocrine therapy with breast conservation surgery and breast radiation.

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.