View clinical trials related to Neoplasms.
Filter by:This is an open label, dose finding, phase Ib clinical trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of the orally administered phosphatidylinositol 3'-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor BKM120 in combination with the MEK1/2 inhibitor MEK162. This combination will be explored in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) which has progressed on EGFR inhibitors and triple negative breast cancer, as well as pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, malignant melanoma, NSCLC, and other advanced solid tumors with KRAS, NRAS, and/or BRAF mutations. Dose escalation will be guided by a Bayesian logistic regression model with overdose control. At MTD or RP2D, two expansion arms will be opened in order to further assess safety and preliminary anti-tumor activity of the combination of BKM120 and MEK162. Study drugs will be administered once daily orally on a continuous schedule. A treatment cycle is defined as 28 days.
Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients is specific and has been validated in trials that favor the use of LMWH (Low Molecular Weight Heparin) instead of VKA (Vitamin K Antagonist) treatment during 6 months. International recommendations have diffused this option.It is necessary to evaluate the compliance of physicians to this treatment by measuring the number of patients with cancer treated with long term use of LMWH.
This is an open-label, multicenter, Phase Ib, dose-escalation study designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of oral ipatasertib (GDC-0068) administered in combination with either docetaxel (Arm A), or oxaliplatin, leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy) (Arm B), or paclitaxel (Arm C), in participants with advanced or metastatic solid tumors for which standard therapy either does not exist or has proven ineffective or intolerable. Arm D will assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of ipatasertib administered in combination with enzalutamide in participants with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). There will be two stages within each arm of this study: a dose-escalation stage (Stage 1) and a cohort-expansion stage (Stage 2). In Stage 1, approximately 3 to 6 cohorts in Arms A and B and 1 to 2 cohorts in Arms C and D will be evaluated to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ipatasertib in a given combination. Additional participants will be enrolled in Stage 2 (cohort expansion), to further characterize the safety and tolerability of ipatasertib in these combinations and to confirm a potential recommended Phase II dose of ipatasertib for each regimen. NOTE: Arms A, B, and C are closed.
This 9-week study aimed to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of nabiximols (Sativex®) as an adjunctive treatment, compared with placebo in relieving uncontrolled persistent chronic pain in participants with advanced cancer. Eligible participants were not required to stop any of their current treatments or medications.
This randomized clinical trial studies structured multidisciplinary intervention or standard medical care in improving quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving active cancer treatment. A structured multidisciplinary intervention may improve the QOL in patients receiving treatment for cancer. It is not yet known whether structured multidisciplinary intervention is more effective than standard medical care in improving QOL
In this single centre study we study the use of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) combined with elastography in order to separate malignant tissue from benign tissue in and adjacent to the upper gastrointestinal tract.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetic profile of RRx-001 for injection in subjects with advanced solid tumors or lymphomas for which there are no currently accepted curative therapies. This study will also conduct an exploratory evaluation of objective tumor response using CT or MRI.
This open-label 2-arm study will assess the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and efficacy of RO5429083 in patients with metastatic and/or locally advanced CD44-expressing malignant solid tumors. In Part A, cohorts of patients will receive RO5429083 intravenously at escalating doses. In Part B, patients will receive 89Zr-labelled RO5429083 in Cycles 1 and/or 2, followed by RO5429083. For all patients there will be an option to continue treatment with RO5429083 until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurs.
The purpose of this study is to: 1) identify the palliative care needs of Emergency Department patients with advanced cancer, and determine if these needs can be rapidly assessed in the ED; 2) determine whether early palliative care consultation improves survival, quality of life and other burdensome symptoms and decreases utilization as compared to usual care.
EUS-guided FNA has been proved to be a safe and useful method for tissue sampling of gastrointestinal track lesions and other organ lesions including mediastinal and intra-abdominal lymph nodes, pancreas and hepatobiliary tree. The usefulness of EUS-FNA depends on several factors. For example, experience of the endosonographers, adequate sampling, sample preparing, accurate interpretation by the cytopathologist and on-site cytopathology interpretation. However, in many hospitals, no cytopathologist can be present during EUS-FNA. Therefore, determining appropriate methods to obtain and prepare EUS-guided FNA are important to make correct a diagnosis without on-site cytopathologist. Suction with a self-retracting 10-mL syringe will likely bring in more cellularity but also more blood. Some endosonographers use no suction, others use constant suction. Usually specimen is expelled from a needle with pushing the stylet into the needle. But use of the stylet during EUS-FNA is difficult and time consuming process. Injecting air was not recommended, because of spraying out uncontrollably, increasing risk of air artifact and specimen clotting. However, there is no further study which one is the appropriate, suction or no suction and pushing the stylet or injecting air until now. The hypothesis and aim of the prospective randomized controlled trials are as follows: First hypothesis: There was no difference in the adequacy, cellularity, bloodiness, contamination, air artifact in specimen obtained by each methods, suction or no suction and pushing the stylet or injecting air. Aim #1 : To compare the adequacy, cellularity, bloodiness, contamination, air artifact in specimen obtained by each methods, suction or no suction and pushing the stylet or injecting air. Second hypothesis: There was no difference in sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and statistical agreement in specimen obtained by each methods, suction or no suction and pushing the stylet or injecting air. Aim #2 : To compare the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and statistical agreement in specimen obtained by each methods, suction or no suction and pushing the stylet or injecting air.