View clinical trials related to Neoplasms.
Filter by:This is a First-in-Human (FIH), 2-part, Phase 1/2, open-label, multicenter study design to evaluate the safety, tolerability, PK, pharmacodynamics, PGx, and efficacy of TAS0728. This study consists of Phase 1 and Phase 2 components in subjects with advanced solid tumors with HER2 or HER3 overexpression, amplification, or mutation who have progressed despite standard therapy or for which no standard therapy exists, particularly urothelial cancer, biliary tract cancer, metastatic breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer.
The aim of this study is to compare the humeral and thoracic implantation of a central venous access by an implantable device in patients with solids tumors who require intravenous chemotherapy. This is a monocentric randomized study. 572 patients will be recruited for 2 years. They will be randomized either in the thoracic implantation, either in the humeral implantation Due to the 1:3 randomization, 143 patients will be randomized in the humeral arm and 429 into the thoracic one. Number of complications related to the implantable device, medico-economic analysis as well as patient satisfaction will be assessed. Every patients with solid tumor requiring medical device implantation for intravenous chemotherapy treatment will be eligible. Both humeral and thoracic implantation of medical device are standard procedures. The randomization in a specific arm is the study procedure and is considered as an interventional study in France.
PediQUEST Response proposes a new system of care that expects to improve quality of life in children, adolescents, and young adults with advanced cancer and their parents. The investigators want to learn whether patients that are cared for using PediQUEST Response do in fact feel better than those receiving usual care. National recommendations call for early palliative care (PC) integration for seriously ill children to ease suffering, however, very few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated whether PC improves child and family outcomes. In prior work, the investigators developed the Pediatric Quality of Life and Evaluation of Symptoms Technology (PediQUEST/PQ), a software that collects electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (e-PROMS) and generates feedback reports. Now, the PI and research team developed PediQUEST Response (Response to Pediatric Oncology Symptom Experience). PediQUEST Response includes an enhanced PediQUEST system (web-based and with an App that allows to answer surveys and see reports), that is coupled with early integration of a palliative care consulting team (Response team). This dual strategy will help to standardize the family report of distress, which will be done through the PediQUEST system. It will also help standardize the providers' response to such distress, as providers will be specifically trained. Pilot work for PediQUEST Response found it feasible, well received by families and oncologists, and potentially effective. Thus, the overall goal of this study is to conduct a RCT of PQ Response versus usual care at four large pediatric oncology centers among 136 children ≥2 years old with advanced cancer. Hypotheses include a) children receiving the intervention will have better (higher) quality of life scores b) parents of children in the intervention group will report better state-anxiety, depression and symptom-related stress scores, and c) intervention group families will demonstrate higher levels of activation.
This is an open label nonrandomized Phase I/ IIA trial designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of apatinib in combination with pembrolizumab. Phase I will assess the safety of combining increasing oral daily doses of apatinib with a fixed dose of IV pembrolizumab every three weeks and will determine the RP2D (Recommended Phase 2 Dose). Phase II will assess the efficacy of the RP2D of apatinib in combination with pembrolizumab and provide additional safety and tolerability data in three disease-specific cohorts
The proposed initial trial is a Phase I, open label study to evaluate the safety and explore efficacy of MG005 in combination with sorafenib in patients with solid tumor. The eligible patients will receive 200 mg of sorafenib with 3 pre-defined dose levels of GW5074, escalated from 750 mg to 1500 mg (daily dose), to determine the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) and dose limiting toxicities (DLT) (if any) at Phase I stage.
The presence of an adnexal mass is a frequent reason for a woman to be referred to a gynaecologist. The discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses is central to decisions regarding clinical management and surgical planning in such patients. Patients with malignant tumours should be referred to a gynaecological oncologist, as the quality of cytoreductive surgery and surgical staging/lymph node dissection are important prognostic factors in ovarian cancer. These specialized surgical procedures require the specific skills and experience provided by gynaecologic oncology surgeons. Furthermore, appropriate and timely referral to a gynaecologic oncologist has been proven to increase survival in patients with ovarian cancer.Conversely, patients believed to have a benign mass requiring surgery are able to have this performed by a general gynaecologist. A standardized method for preoperative identification of probable malignant masses would allow optimization of first-line treatment for women with ovarian cancer. A risk of malignancy index would be valuable for the selective referral of relevant patients to specialized oncology centres. Currently, clinical examination, ultrasound assessment, and assays of tumour markers are part of the standard work-up for an adnexal mass. Although none of these indicators alone is very sensitive or specific for detecting malignancy, an index developed by Jacobs et al. incorporates information about the patient's menopausal status and serum Cancer antigen A-125 levels, and ultrasound characteristics of the mass to predict the risk of malignancy with greater sensitivity and specificity than any one factor alone.Some of the potential advantages of risk malignant index include rapid triage of patients through the referral system and fewer operations for benign masses being performed by gynaecologic oncologists.
This phase II trial studies how well venetoclax and decitabine work in treating participants with acute myeloid leukemia that has come back or does not respond to treatment, or with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome that has come back. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as venetoclax and decitabine, work in different ways to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading.
This is a proof-of-concept study to define efficacy of AVELUMAB in patients with multiple relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors (GCTs). Data suggest that PD-L1 is overexpressed in TGCTs, and PD-L1 expression is significantly higher in GCTs in comparison to normal testicular tissue.Patients with low PD-L1 expression had significantly better progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.40, 95% CI (0.16 - 1.01, p = 0.008) and overall survival (HR = 0.43, 95% CI (0.15 - 1.23, p = 0.040) compared to patients with high PD-L1 expression. These data suggest that PD-1/PD-L1 pathway could be a novel therapeutic target in TGCTs and that there is strong rationale to inhibit PD-1/PD-L1 signaling in GCTs.
This is a randomized phase III trial that will randomize elderly patients(70 years of age and older) who are not considered eligible for standard doublet or triplet regimens. In a 2:1 fashion, patients will be randomized to the customization arm or the standard arm, respectively. This trial will be offered to patients who are previously untreated for stage IV NSCLC. The primary objective is to evaluate if chemotherapy selection based on histology and tumoral molecular determinants ERCC1, RRM1 and TS (arm A, the experimental arm) results in superior outcome in elderly patients with untreated, advanced NSCLC compared to standard of care treatments (arm B, the standard arm).
Over the last two decades, the number of patients with hematological malignancies (HMs) admitted to the ICU increased and their mortality has dropped sharply. Patients with HMs increasingly require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for life-threatening events related to the malignancy and/or treatments, with immunosuppression being a major contributor. Whether the increase in ICU admissions is related to increased referrals by hematologists and/or to increased admissions by intensivists is unknown. The criteria used for ICU referral and admission decisions have not been extensively evaluated. Finally, the links between admission policies and treatment-limitation decisions are unclear, but ICUs with broad admission policies may change the treatment goals based on the response to several days of full-code management. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of a systematic evaluation by an intensivist of HMs patients presenting with acute respiratory and/or hemodynamic failure.