View clinical trials related to Colorectal Cancer.Filter by:
A Phase I/IIa First-in-human, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Preliminary Efficacy of AZD8853 in Participants with Selected Advanced/Metastatic Solid Tumours.
This is a Phase 1 dose-finding study of FT536 given in combination with a monoclonal antibody following lymphodepletion in participants with advanced solid tumors. The study will consist of a dose-escalation stage and an expansion stage where participants will be enrolled into indication-specific cohorts.
This is a first-in-human, Phase 1 open-label, multicenter, dose escalation, safety, pharmacodynamic, and PK study of exoASO-STAT6 (CDK-004) in patients with advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) and patients with liver metastases from either primary gastric cancer or colorectal cancer (CRC).
This is an observational study with the goal to improve the robustness of the scientific evidence linking Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) and/or other microorganisms to colorectal cancer (CRC) onset and/or progression. This is an approximately three-year study. There are two phases to this study, including: 1) pilot phase, 2) full study. There are also five arms in this study including cancer-free, pre-cancerous, and Colorectal cancer stages (I-III). The pilot study will include the recruitment of 50 participants per group (i.e., total of 250 participants). The full study will have an additional 150 participants per group (total of 1,000 participants). This study will recruit using clinical sites in the United States. There are 5 timepoints in this study. If the participants are found to be medically eligible through diagnosis and medical information, they will provide samples (including: saliva, blood, urine, stool and tumor biopsy) at each timepoint and during the study. They will also answer health and wellness questions during this study. Additional data collection, including medical data, biopsies and other biological samples might happen at interim timepoints in case of adenoma/cancer disease progression (recurrence, metastasis). The participant's healthcare provider will determine if additional biopsies are required as a part of the standard of care. If collected, additional samples will be sent for research purposes.
Research efforts are necessary to identify strategies to increase colorectal screening in underserved patient populations. Racial, ethnic minorities and medically underserved individuals continue to experience disparities in colorectal cancer mortality despite the availability of screening tests that can detect tumors early when treatments are most effective.
This is a first-in-human, Phase 1, open label, multicenter, multiple dose, dose escalation and expansion study intended to evaluate the safety, viral load kinetics and shedding, pharmacodynamic, and anti-tumor activity of PF-07263689, either alone or in combination with sasanlimab (an investigational anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] antibody), in patients with selected locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors who have exhausted all available standard of care therapies available to them. The study consists of 2 parts: Part 1 dose escalation for PF-07263689 monotherapy (Part 1A) and in combination with sasanlimab (Part 1B), followed by Part 2 dose expansion for the combination therapy.
This multi-center, open label Phase II clinical study is performed in patients with unresectable or metastatic malignant tumors of the digestive system (colorectal cancer, gastric cancer). This study is investigating the safety and efficacy of SI-B001 at monotherapy or optimal combination dose with chemotherapy in patients.
The investigators' null hypothesis is that a withdrawal time of 9 to 10 minutes is non-inferior to a withdrawal time of 12 minutes or greater. Thus, the goal of this tandem design trial is to compare the additional diagnostic yield (# of missed lesions) for withdrawal times exceeding 10 minutes for screening/surveillance colonoscopies. Although withdrawal times longer than the standard 6-minute recommendation have been shown to be beneficial, there is limited prospective evidence investigating the benefit or lack thereof for withdrawal times greater than 9-10 minutes.
This is a single center, open-label, nonrandomized, Phase 1b, dose-escalation study designed to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of CKD-516 in combination with durvalumab and evaluate the safety and tolerability profile, efficacy of CKD-516 and durvalumab treatment.
One tricky aspect of the recommendations for colonoscopy prep is diet. This has a significant impact on the experience of the patient or participant in the screening program and, on the other hand, low adherence has been found in some studies despite a potential Hawthorne effect . It is noteworthy that despite its impact on patient experience, it is an area for which little evidence is available, which is why the guidelines give low-quality recommendations and there is probably considerable variability in clinical practice . In the early days of colonoscopy, a liquid diet for 48 hours was mainly recommended, although some centers indicated a low-residue diet or even the commercially available NASA astronaut diet. Later, the indication for a liquid diet was consolidated until finally numerous studies were published in favor of a low-residue diet, managing to increase tolerance and the quality of the preparation . A limitation of the preparation studies must be borne in mind that the colon cleansing rating scales were not introduced until 1999 when the Aronchick scale was published. Although there is solid evidence in favor of a low-residue diet versus a liquid diet, the investigators do not have evidence on how many days of a low-residue diet should be recommended, and this is reflected in the ESGE (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) and ASGE (American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) guidelines . A randomized clinical trial comparing 3 days versus 1 day of a low residue diet has recently been published . There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of adequate preparations (82.7% vs. 85.6% OR 1.2 95% IC 0.72 to 2.15). However, this study has limited statistical power and a design that allows a non-inferiority analysis has not been followed. In relation to this, our research group is finalizing a non-inferiority clinical trial in whose intermediate analysis, with 421 participants, the non-inferiority of 1 day of diet is fulfilled (rate of poor preparation in 1 day 0.95% vs. 4.74% in 3 days; d + 5%, difference -3.78% IC -6.88% to -1.12%) (38). It is likely, taking into account the available evidence and its evolution, that diet plays a secondary role in preparation. Although no studies designed to directly assess this have been conducted, the research group has indirect data. Walter et al, under the hypothesis that the impact of the fractional preparation and the new preparations on the preparation diminished the importance of the diet, conducted a non-inferiority clinical trial between 2012 and 2013 in which they randomized the patients to follow a diet liquid versus low residue for one day and fractional preparation with Moviprep (39). They established a non-inferiority margin of -13.5%. Their results show a rate of good preparation (Boston> 5) in 68/72 (94.4%) in a liquid diet compared to 60/68 (88.2%) in a low-residue diet (p = 0.04) with a difference of -5.08% demonstrating non-inferiority of the low residue diet.