There are about 6461 clinical studies being (or have been) conducted in Russian Federation. The country of the clinical trial is determined by the location of where the clinical research is being studied. Most studies are often held in multiple locations & countries.
The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of treatment with definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) + pembrolizumab (MK-3475) compared to treatment with dCRT + placebo with respect to Event-free Survival (EFS) and Overall Survival (OS) in: - participants whose tumors express Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) Combined Positive Score (CPS) ≥10 - participants whose tumors express PD-L1 CPS ≥1 - all participants The primary study hypotheses are that dCRT+ pembrolizumab is better than dCRT + placebo with respect to: - EFS in participants whose tumors express PD-L1 CPS ≥10 - EFS in participants whose tumors express PD-L1 CPS ≥1 - EFS in all participants - OS in participants whose tumors express PD-L1 CPS ≥10 - OS in participants whose tumors express PD-L1 CPS ≥1 - OS in all participants
This Phase 3 study is designed to compare the efficacy and safety of mirvetuximab soravtansine vs. investigator's choice chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer, whose tumors express a high-level of FRα. Patients will be, in the opinion of the Investigator, appropriate for single-agent therapy for their next line of therapy. Folate receptor alpha (FRα) positivity will be defined by the Ventana FOLR1 (FOLR1-2.1) CDx assay.
This is a two-part study designed to evaluate the effect of Estetrol (E4) 15 or 20 mg, or placebo on the severity and frequency of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) (Efficacy Study Part) and the safety of E4 20 mg (Endometrial and General Safety Study Part)
The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy with or without INCMGA00012 in participants with metastatic squamous and nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
This interventional prospective multicenter nonrandomized clinical and epidemiological study is the first Russian study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a single-lead electrocardiography device (CardioQVARK) in screening for atrial fibrillation in primary health care.
This is a study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) with or without lenvatinib (E7080/MK-7902) as a first line intervention in a PD-L1 selected population with participants with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Hypotheses include: - Pembrolizumab + lenvatinib is superior to pembrolizumab + placebo with respect to Objective Response Rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) by blinded independent central review (BICR). - Pembrolizumab + lenvatinib is superior to pembrolizumab + placebo with respect to Progression Free Survival (PFS) per RECIST 1.1 as assessed by BICR. - Pembrolizumab + lenvatinib is superior to pembrolizumab + placebo with respect to overall survival (OS).
The primary objective of this study is to compare belzutifan to everolimus with respect to progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) and to compare everolimus with respect to overall survival (OS). The hypothesis is that belzutifan is superior to everolimus with respect to PFS and OS.
The reason for this study is to see if the study drug selpercatinib compared to a standard treatment is effective and safe in participants with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has spread to other parts of the body. Participants who are assigned to the standard treatment and discontinue due to progressive disease have the option to potentially crossover to selpercatinib.
This study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of inavolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant compared with placebo plus palbociclib and fulvestrant in participants with PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer whose disease progressed during treatment or within 12 months of completing adjuvant endocrine therapy and who have not received prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease.
This study will assess the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) versus placebo plus enzalutamide plus ADT in participants with mHSPC. The primary hypothesis is that in participants with mHSPC, the combination of pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide plus ADT is superior to placebo plus enzalutamide plus ADT with respect to 1) radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per Prostate Cancer Working Group (PCWG)-modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 as assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) and 2) overall survival (OS). As of 19-JAN-2023, the study was unblinded and all study participants stopped ongoing treatment with pembrolizumab/placebo and will continue to receive Standard of Care treatment until meeting protocol-specified discontinuation criteria if deriving clinical benefit. Safety analysis will be performed at the end of the study; there will be no further analyses for efficacy and electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) endpoints collected from participants beyond the IA1 cutoff date. All study participants will stop ongoing treatment with pembrolizumab/placebo. Exceptions may be requested for study participants who, in the assessment of their study physician, are benefitting from the combination of enzalutamide and pembrolizumab, after consulting with the Sponsor. All other study participants should be discontinued from study and be offered standard of care (SOC) treatment as deemed necessary by the Investigator. If enzalutamide as SOC is not accessible off study to the participant, central sourcing may continue. As of Amendment 04, disease progression will no longer be centrally verified, participants will only be assessed locally. As of Amendment 4, Second Course treatment is not an option for participants. There are currently no participants in the Second Course Phase.