View clinical trials related to Colorectal Cancer.
Filter by:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SHR-8068 and Adebrelimab in Combination With Bevacizumabin in the treatment of microsatellite stable (MSS) advanced colorectal cancer.
The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a digital health program called AYA STEPS, which is designed to help adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors manage symptoms and engage in recommended follow-up care.
Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is an anesthesia method that provides somatic analgesia to the anterior and lateral abdominal walls. Thus, TAP block is widely implemented in perioperative management of colorectal cancer patients. Researchers aimed to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and duration of effect of dexmedetomidine added to bupivacaine in the TAP block applied in colorectal cancer surgeries.
This study is an open-label Phase Ib (Part A) dose escalation followed by a blinded, randomized, multi cohort Phase 2a (Part B) comparison of combination vs. reference regimens. Currently study will only be enrolling the Phase 1b and the Phase 2a protocol requirements will be added to the study near completion of the Phase 1b
To find the highest and/or recommended dose of TROP2-CAR-NK cells combined with cetuximab in participants with MRD CRC.
Evaluate the efficacy and safety of Nocardia rubra cell wall skeleton in combination with prior second- or third-line regimens for the treatment of potentially hazardous colorectal cancer SD(Stable Disease) status in the real world.
This is a prospective, observational cohort study to establish the minimal residual disease (MRD) model for predicting relapse risk and identifying disease recurrence in patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma based on the miRNA platform. Blood miRNA markers will be evaluated. The study will enroll approximately 600 participants, including participants with malignancies or benign diseases, and healthy participants.
A single arm, prospective, single center Phase1/2 Dietary intervention trial for subjects diagnosed with colorectal cancer and scheduled for tumor resection more than 21 days from informed consent. Subjects will be provided 21 days of standardized plant-based low fat/ high-fiber meals and complete a food diary up until lunch on the day prior to surgery. Blood samples will be collected at baseline and on the day of surgery. Stool samples will be collected throughout the dietary intervention period at specific timepoints, on the day of surgery, and 30 days post-surgery. Tissue from the tumor resection will be isolated for organoid cultures. Subjects will be followed per standard of care for up to 5 years or disease recurrence, whichever comes first. Subject may be treated for their cancer prior to surgery and/or during the follow-up period.
Colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most diagnosed cancer and second most common cause of cancer death. CRCs develop from precursors like adenomas (about 70% of CRCs) or serrated lesions (SSLs) (about 25-30% of CRCs). Colonoscopy is the cornerstone in CRC screening, in screening programmes often as a work-up examination after a positive primary screening test such as faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Norway and Sweden have recently launched a nationwide faecal haemoglobin CRC screening programmes. Recently, both a Dutch and an Austrian study showed that SSL detection rate (SSLDR) is inversely correlated to CRC at follow-up. Consequently, improved SSLDR can reduce the risk of post-colonoscopy CRC. SSLs are typically located in the right colon. They are flat, with indistinctive boarders, and consequently easily missed or incompletely resected. A Norwegian study showed incomplete resection of 40% of proximal SSLs. The prevalence of SSLs is higher in women than in men, with women being on a threefold risk of developing CRC from SSLs. It seems like post-colonoscopy CRC more often is caused by SSLs than by adenomas. Total underwater colonoscopy (TUC) is a technique replacing conventional CO2 insufflation by water infusion to distend the lumen and visualise the mucosa during withdrawal of the colonoscope and simultaneously removal of water. There are several reasons to advocate TUC: 1. SSLs will be more visible as they "float" on the submucosa and contract into the lumen, while full distension by gas stretches the mucosa, making detection of flat lesions more difficult. 2. Water works like a magnifying lens, making detection and detailed characterisation of lesions easier. 3. uEMR is eased. 4. Improved bowel cleansing The goal of this clinical trial is to compare colonoscopy outcomes for standard gas (CO2) insufflation and TUC during withdrawal in patients participating in colonoscopy in the Norwegian and Swedish colorectal cancer screening programme after a positive fecal immunochemical test. The overarching research questions of the present trial is whether colonoscopy outcomes are improved when CO2 insufflation is replaced by TUC during withdrawal and whether the new technique reduces the ecological footprint of the colonoscopy examination. The project has five main hypotheses: 1. TUC is superior to the standard approach (CO2 withdrawal) regarding detection of proximal SSLs. 2. TUC increases the rate of complete resection of lesions >= 10mm. 3. TUC reduces the rate of painful colonoscopies and vasovagal reactions. 4. TUC reduces the health care costs by reduced use of single use accessories and reduced number of redundant colonoscopies to obtain polypfree colon. 5. TUC reduces the carbon footprint by reduced use of single use accessories. If TUC is superior to gas insufflation, the technique may be implemented rapidly since the technique is easy to learn. This study will increase endoscopy competence at participating centres. The centres are involved in national colonoscopy training programs, so the technique will quickly be passed on to other hospitals and screening centres. The trial can be linked to three of the Global Goals: - Good health and well-being: The increased detection and improved complete removal of sessile serrated lesions can subsequently decrease the risk of CRC and CRC mortality during follow-up. TUC will probably reduce the rate of painful procedures and vasovagal reactions and thus increase the acceptance of a screening programme. Consequently, the project can contribute significantly to improve screening effectiveness in Norway and Sweden, particularly in women (women have a higher risk for SSLs and a higher risk of colorectal cancer developing from this type of precursor). - Gender equality: Women have a similar lifetime risk for CRC as men but less benefit of screening regardless of whether they are screened by sigmoidoscopy, FIT or colonoscopy. The reason is probably missed sessile serrated lesions in the proximal colon. If TUC improves SSLDR and complete lesion resection, this may lead to an equal benefit from CRC screening for women and men. Women have also a higher risk of discomfort and pain during colonoscopy than men. It has been shown that women prefer non-invasive screening modalities, potentially to avoid pain during colonoscopy, even if colonoscopy may be the most beneficial screening method for women. If TUC reduces the rate of painful colonoscopies, it can reduce women's barriers to attend screening. - Responsible consumption and production: The TUC technique will also reduce the ecological footprint of colonoscopy activity due to reduced consumption of single use accessories and reduced number of colonoscopies to achieve polyp free colon. Furthermore, the cost for the health care system will be substantially reduced.
The primary goal of this protocol is to conduct an open pilot to collect initial quantitative and qualitative feedback on the intervention that the investigators are developing. To do so, the investigators will deliver a newly-developed intervention to up to 2 consecutive groups of female colorectal and anal cancer survivors (n = up to 10 per group, total N = up to 20). Participants will provide feedback regarding intervention acceptability, feasibility, and perceived benefit. To inform plans for ongoing program refinement, the investigators will elicit specific feedback about study assessment tools, recruitment procedures, and group factors. Given the early-stage, open pilot nature of this protocol, the investigators will not set strict criteria to establish feasibility and acceptability but will rather interpret each of these outcomes holistically. Qualitative feedback collected in post-intervention exit interviews will also support understanding of feasibility and acceptability. As a secondary aim, the investigators will explore the preliminary effects of the intervention on psychosocial measures of satisfaction with sexuality and impact of functional limitations, coping abilities, acceptance of body image changes, loneliness, and anticipated stigma. As noted above, the investigators will not set specific criteria to establish preliminary efficacy, nor will they consider statistical significance as an indicator of the study's efficacy for these outcomes. Instead, the investigators will consider pre-post intervention effect sizes to consider the need for refinement of study procedures/measurement in a future larger trial. In future, larger-scale, work, the investigators intend to conduct a larger randomized pilot trial to assess intervention acceptability, feasibility, as well as preliminary efficacy on essential outcomes related to sexual well-being.