View clinical trials related to Metastatic Cancer.
Filter by:A Phase 1/2 Open-label, Multi-center Study of the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Anti-tumor Activity of LYT-200 Alone and in Combination with Chemotherapy or Tislelizumab in Patients with Metastatic Solid Tumors
This clinical trial is evaluating a drug called ART0380 in participants with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. The main goals of this study are to: - Find the recommended dose of ART0380 that can be given safely to participants alone and in combination with gemcitabine or irinotecan - Learn more about the side effects of ART0380 alone and in combination with gemcitabine or irinotecan - Learn more about the effectiveness of ART0380 alone and in combination with gemcitabine or irinotecan
This is a Phase 1, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation, safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study with cohort expansion at the RP2D to evaluate safety and anti- tumor activity of Q702 administered orally.
This is a Phase 1/1b, multicenter, open label study to evaluate the Safety and Antitumor Activity of FS120, an OX40/CD137 Bispecific Antibody, Alone and in Combination with Pembrolizumab, in Subjects with Advanced Malignancies
The study will evaluate the preliminary efficacy of 3 combinations (Sym021+Sym022, Sym021+Sym023 and Sym021+Sym023+irinotecan) in patients with biliary tract carcinomas (BTC) and with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) by assessing overall response rates (ORRs) per Investigator assessment using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 The study will also evaluate the safety and tolerability profile of the 3 combinations
Title of the study A study to examine the value of broad agnostic NGS panel testing versus reimbursed organ-directed NGS: a Belgian Precision study of the BSMO in collaboration with the Cancer Centre Study Number BSMO 2020-1 Study Phase Exploratory Sponsor Belgian Society of medical Oncology (BSMO) Treatment None Background and Rationale Several drugs targeting mutated gene products in cancer cells are available to Belgian patients through reimbursement of the drugs and, soon, by reimbursed organ-specific genomic testing. This context is unfavorable with regard to the following issues: 1. Many more additional drugs with sound scientific rationale and preclinical evidence are available through clinical trials. The relevant genes are generally not included in the reimbursed NGS and ad hoc identification of such patients is extremely difficult and thus severely hampering the accrual in such trials. This denies patients a potential access to innovative treatments from which they could benefit and hampers progress. 2. The same genes can be mutated in other cancer types, other than the reimbursed context, but are not detected due to the organ-specific approach in reimbursed NGS. Examination of these genes with an agnostic approach would give these other patients potential access to the drugs (via various routes, including clinical trials or medical need or otherwise) 3. The broader panels applied by some Belgian platforms (50-100 genes), sometimes in an agnostic approach, do not cover all potentially actionable genes or not all types of actionable variants in these genes. 4. Rearrangements which are highly actionable are not systematically covered in NGS testing, but rely on immunohistochemistry (if done at all) of fusion panels testing that requires additional funding. 5. The various Belgian NGS labs use accredited but heterogeneous methodology and it has been reported that the detection rate of some mutations varies from one site to another. Therefore, from a patient and oncologist point of view there are current deficiencies that jeopardize optimal access of patients to current or novel genome-driven therapies. Defective identification of sensitive patients limits the implementation of clinical trials and their accrual rates and therefore the attractiveness of Belgium for such trials. There are more comprehensive commercial platforms that cover a large set of actionable genes (up to hundreds of genes) and the various types of mutations in these genes: sequence mutations, rearrangements, resulting in fusion genes, and gene amplifications. These commercial vendors have adequate comprehensive methodology but are too expensive (at their current public pricing) for general application. One of these is the platform of Foundation Medicine that builds on a large experience in variant annotation in the US and includes probably all current actionable targets including gene mutations, fusions, MSI, and TMB, all at once in one result. They also report actionability and established or clinical trial treatment options. To oncologists this is very attractive compared to the fragmented, sequential and very limited current reimbursed conditions. The investigators estimate that up to 20% of advanced cancer patients could get access to genotype-based treatment that are not covered by the organ-based reimbursement based access to NGS. This can be in the form of off-label application of reimbursed drugs, pharma-sponsored drug development trials that address a specific genotype or pharma sponsored or academic basket trials. Without broad agnostic testing the identification of eligible patients remains extremely difficult. A recent study [A study of genetic characteristics and suitability for targeted cancer treatment (TARGET)] showed that the rate of detection of actionable mutations increased from 28% with local testing to 66% with Foundation Medicine testing. Objectives 1. To determine the added value of comprehensive and agnostic NGS versus "real-world" practice ("real-world" practice means local testing, no reimbursement for local testing and/or no accessible metastatic lesion) in providing patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors access molecular guided therapy and/or immunotherapy based on genomic results. 2. To describe the landscape of genomic alterations detected by reimbursed NGS 3. To describe he landscape of genomic alterations detected by comprehensive panel testing 4. To assess the technical success of comprehensive panel testing 5. To describe the uptake of treatments recommended by the molecular tumor board guided by the genomic testing.
The current trial will test the combination of darolutamide with SBRT, in oligometastatic recurrent hormone sensitive prostate cancer. We hypothesize that the addition of short-term darolutamide improves metastasis-free survival when added to SBRT without a detrimental impact on the QoL. Considering the large reluctance of both patients and physicians to be randomized to observation, we propose to use the historical data from previous reported randomized trials (STOMP and ORIOLE) as a comparator to explore as a secondary endpoint.
This is a multi-arm prospective trial that evaluates the ability of a novel imaging radiolabeled agents to detect metastatic cancer in participants with solid tumors using a gallium 68 (68Ga-) or copper 64 (64Cu-) FAP-2286 tracer. FAP-2286 is a peptidomimetic molecule that that binds to Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP). FAP is a transmembrane protein expressed on cancer-associated fibroblasts, and has been shown to be present on a number of solid tumors.
de Novo metastatic prostate cancer with limited metastatic spread benefits from local radiotherapy to the prostate. Two different fractionation schedules will be tested.
This study aims to study the kinetics of ctDNA levels after the first dose of immune checkpoint inhibitor in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. This is an important study to understand the optimal timing for ctDNA quantitation for future studies in immunotherapy, though further validation would be needed in other tumor types. It may help standardize the most relevant blood collection time points so that patients will not be subjected to multiple blood draws at random time points in future liquid biopsy trials.