View clinical trials related to Chest Wall Disease.
Filter by:This is a phase II multicenter study including breast cancer patients with chest wall disease that is hormone resistant (estrogen receptor (ER) positive/progesterone receptor (PR) positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative breast cancer with progressive disease on 2 prior lines of hormonal therapy) or triple negative (ER negative/PR negative/HER2 negative, TNBC). Eighty-four patients will be enrolled at Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC) sites and will be randomized 2:1 to receive treatment with pembrolizumab and carboplatin (n=56, Arm A) or carboplatin alone (n=28, Arm B) until documented disease progression. Patients randomized to Arm B may cross-over following progression to pembrolizumab with or without carboplatin at investigator's discretion (Arm Bx). Patients may have received any number of prior lines of chemotherapy. Patients in Arm A will be treated with pembrolizumab 200 mg IV and carboplatin area under curve (AUC) 5 IV every 3 weeks for at least 6 cycles followed by maintenance pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks if stable or responding disease. Patients in Arm B will be treated with carboplatin AUC 5 IV every 3 weeks until progression, whereupon they may cross-over to pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks with or without carboplatin at investigator's discretion (Arm Bx). An interim analysis for futility will be performed after 18 patients are enrolled into Arm B to allow early stopping of that trial arm for lack of efficacy. The primary endpoint is to compare disease control rates at 18 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, toxicity, and overall response rate.
This study is looking at whether there is a difference in outcomes using two different types of breathing support in those patients who have chronic respiratory failure (patients who under-breathe). There is little data to demonstrate which mode of ventilation is better in terms of physiological outcomes and outcome data relating to patient symptoms. We hypothesize that one type of breathing support: pressure support ventilation would be more comfortable for patients as it more closely matches a patient's own respiratory pattern and and so leads to improved adherence and consequent improvement in quality of life. Patients with respiratory failure will be randomly assigned to receive either pressure support ventilation or pressure control ventilation for the first 6 weeks and then cross-over to receive the mode not previously used for a further 6 weeks. They will have baseline data recorded and then be followed up after each 6 week block.