Clinical Trials Actively Recruiting

Objective:

Primary Objective(s):

• To compare progression-free survival in participants with metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (mPRCC) randomized to cabozantinib with atezolizumab versus cabozantinib alone.
   

Secondary Objective(s):

• To compare overall survival in participants with mPRCC randomized to cabozantinib with atezolizumab versus cabozantinib alone.
• To compare RECIST objective response rate (confirmed and unconfirmed, complete and partial response) in participants with mPRCC randomized to cabozantinib with atezolizumab versus cabozantinib alone.
• To evaluate the quantitative & qualitive adverse events observed in each treatment arm.

Objective:

Primary Objectives:

• To compare the progression-free survival in participants with relapsed/refractory
  large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma grade 3B with stable disease (SD)
  or partial remission (PR) on first imaging response by central review (day +30
  PET/CT scan) after commercial CD19 CAR T-cell therapy who are randomized to
  receive each consolidation therapy versus those that receive no consolidation
  therapy (i.e. control). Specifically, to compare the PFS of 1) mosunetuzumab
  consolidation to no consolidation, 2) polatuzumab vedotin consolidation to no
  consolidation, 3) mosunetuzumab + polatuzumab vedotin to no consolidation

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare overall survival (OS) in participants randomized to each consolidation
  treatment arm versus control.
• To compare the complete remission (CR) conversion rate up to one year in
  participants randomized to each consolidation arm versus control.
• To evaluate the treatment-related adverse events in participants randomized to
  each consolidation arm.
• To evaluate the association between total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV), SUV
  max, and sum product (SPD) of diameters by PET-CT at first imaging response
  with complete remission conversion up to one year in participants randomized to
  each consolidation arm as well as those randomized to control.
• To evaluate the overall response rate (ORR), CR rate, PFS, and OS of participants
  randomized to Arm 4 (observation) who have lymphoma progression within 12
  months of CAR T-cell infusion and subsequently ‘cross-over' to receive treatment
  with mosunetuzumab + polatuzumab vedotin.
• To estimate overall survival for all patients registered to this study.
• To assess the difference in overall survival between participants who achieved CR
  at first imaging (day +30) versus. those who did not achieve CR at first imaging.

Objective:

Primary Objectives:

• To evaluate the feasibility of molecular characterization based on TMB for
  participant stratification, as assessed by the proportion of participants with less
  than or equal to a 21-day turnaround time for biopsy results in Stage I of the study.
• To evaluate the feasibility of molecular characterization based on TMB and GEP
  (for TIS) for stratification in the overall study (Stage I and Stage II).
• To evaluate the efficacy by overall response rate (ORR – defined as confirmed
  and unconfirmed partial responses plus complete responses) of cabozantinib plus
  nivolumab in each disease cohort, both across and within tumor biomarker
  subgroups.

Secondary Objectives:

• To assess the difference in ORR in each disease cohort between tumor marker
  subgroups separately for each disease cohort.
• To assess safety and tolerability of this treatment in these populations.
• To estimate disease control rate (DCR) in participants receiving cabozantinib plus
  nivolumab in each disease cohort, stratified by tumor biomarkers.
• To estimate progression-free survival (PFS) in participants receiving cabozantinib
  plus nivolumab in each disease cohort, stratified by tumor biomarkers.
• To estimate overall survival (OS) in participants receiving cabozantinib plus
  nivolumab in each disease cohort, stratified by tumor biomarkers.
• To assess the proportion of patients with assay failure, and the time from the date
  of tissue collection to molecular group determination at the end of Stage I.
• To assess turnaround time for TIS for at least 30 patients in Stage I to ensure that
  at least 75% have a turnaround time of <21 days. If TIS is not ready for real-time
  testing when 30 slots remain for Stage I, accrual will be paused until assay
  validation is complete

Objective:

Primary Objectives:

• To compare the overall survival in patients with stage II-IIIC inoperable nodepositive
  non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after image guided, motion-managed
  conventional radiotherapy to the primary tumor and nodal metastases (Arm 1) or after
  image guided, motion-managed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the
  primary tumor followed by conventionally fractionated radiotherapy to nodal
  metastases (Arm 2) both given with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy.
• To compare progression-free survival between the experimental arm (Arm 2) and
  control arm (Arm 1).

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare objective response rate (as defined by RECIST v 1.1) between the
  experimental arm and control arm
• To compare the rate of local control between the experimental arm and control arm
• To compare patterns of failure (primary, locoregional, or distant) between the
  experimental arm and control arm
• To compare changes in pulmonary function (FEV1 and DLCO assessed at
  randomization and at 6 and 12 months following completion of radiation therapy)
  between the experimental arm and control arm
• To compare changes in quality of life and patient-reported outcomes assessed from
  pre-treatment to 3 months following radiation therapy of each treatment arm
• To determine acute and late toxicity profiles of each treatment arm as measured by
  the CTCAEv5

Objective:
Primary Objective:

• To compare overall survival (OS) between the two treatment arms with lenalidomide as the comparator arm and lenalidomide + daratumumab/rHuPH20 as the experimental arm in post-autologous transplant multiple myeloma (MM) patients.

Secondary Objectives of First Randomization:

• To compare the best overall response rate (ORR), including partial remission (PR), very good partial remission (VGPR), and complete remission (CR, sCR) in the subset of patients not in PR at randomization to lenalidomide versus lenalidomide + daratumumab/rHuPH20 in this patient population.
• To compare progression-free survival (PFS) between the study arms in this patient population.
• To evaluate MRD-negativity on the two treatment arms at randomization (Registration Step 2), and to compare MRD-negativity rate at 12, 24 (second randomization), 36, and 48 months after first randomization between lenalidomide and lenalidomide + daratumumab/rHuPH20 in this patient population.
• To compare toxicities and tolerability of long term therapy between the study arms.

Objectives of Second Randomization:

• To compare overall survival (OS) between MRD negative patients randomized to continued lenalidomide vs. discontinued lenalidomide from the time of second randomization in this patient population.
• To compare overall survival (OS) between MRD negative patients randomized to continued lenalidomide + daratumumab/rHuPH20 vs. discontinued lenalidomide + daratumumab/rHuPH20 from time of second randomization in this patient population.

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• To compare overall survival (OS) in participants previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy for Stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) randomized to pembrolizumab and ramucirumab versus standard of care.

Secondary Objective:

• To summarize reports of serious and unexpected high-grade (≥ Grade 3) treatment-related adverse events determined by the treating physician within each treatment arm.

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• To evaluate the progression free survival (PFS) of advanced pancreatic cancer patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations treated with olaparib + pembrolizumab compared to olaparib alone as maintenance therapy.

Secondary Objectives:

• To evaluate the safety and tolerability associated with the combination of olaparib + pembrolizumab vs. olaparib alone as maintenance therapy.
• To evaluate the overall survival (OS) of patients treated with olaparib + pembrolizumab compared to olaparib alone as maintenance therapy.
• To evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1, including confirmed and unconfirmed, complete and partial response, of patients treated with olaparib + pembrolizumab compared to olaparib alone, in the subset of patients with measurable disease.
• To evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) by immune RECIST, including confirmed and unconfirmed, complete and partial response, of patients treated with olaparib + pembrolizumab compared to olaparib alone, in the subset of patients with measurable disease.
• To evaluate the duration of response (DoR) by RECIST 1.1 in patients treated with olaparib + pembrolizumab compared to olaparib alone.

Banking Objective:

• To bank tissue and blood specimens for future correlative studies.

Objective:

Primary Objective

Phase II:

• To compare investigator-assessed progression free survival (PFS) between atezolizumab plus radiotherapy and atezolizumab alone

Phase III:

• To compare overall survival (OS) between atezolizumab plus radiotherapy and atezolizumab alone

Secondary Objectives

• To assess the toxicity between the atezolizumab plus radiotherapy arm and the atezolizumab arm
• To assess the impact of adding radiotherapy on PFS and OS in patients with 1-3 visible tumors and >3 visible tumors
• To assess the impact of adding radiotherapy on PFS and OS in patients receiving consolidation radiotherapy to all visible disease (“complete consolidation”) and patients who do not receive consolidation radiation to all visible disease (“incomplete consolidation”)

Objective:

Primary Objectives

Among patients with metastatic extrapulmonary poorly differentiated small cell NEC, to compare overall survival (OS, measured from randomization) in a fixed sequence as follows:

• Compare the combination of induction platinum/etoposide and atezolizumab followed by maintenance atezolizumab (Arm 1) versus induction platinum/etoposide alone (Arm 3)
• Compare the combination of induction platinum/etoposide and atezolizumab followed by observation (Arm 2) versus induction platinum/etoposide alone (Arm 3)
• Compare the combination of induction platinum/etoposide and atezolizumab followed by maintenance atezolizumab (Arm 1) versus the combination of induction platinum/etoposide and atezolizumab followed by observation (Arm 2)

Secondary Objective(s)

• To compare OS, measured from start of observation/maintenance, across arms
• To compare progression-free survival (PFS) (measured from randomization and measured from start of observation/maintenance) across arms
• To compare objective response rate (ORR = confirmed and unconfirmed partial response (PR) + confirmed and unconfirmed complete response (CR)) across arms among patients with measurable disease at randomization
• To compare clinical benefit rate (CBR = confirmed and unconfirmed PR + confirmed and unconfirmed CR + stable disease (SD)) across arms among patients with measurable disease at randomization
• To compare the duration of response (DOR) across arms
• To evaluate the safety and tolerability of each arm

Additional Objective

• To bank tumor and blood samples for future biomarker correlative studies
/ul>

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• To assess whether participants with early stage TNBC randomized to receive
  anthracycline-free, taxane-platinum neoadjuvant chemotherapy with
  pembrolizumab have non-inferior breast cancer event-free survival (BC-EFS)
  compared to participants randomized to taxane-platinum-anthracycline
  neoadjuvant chemotherapy with pembrolizumab.

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare pathological complete response (pCR) and residual cancer burden
  (RCB) rates by randomized arm.
• To compare pCR and RCB rates between randomized arms by tumor infiltrating
  lymphocytes (TIL) status.
• To compare BC-EFS between randomized arms in the TIL-enriched and non-TIL
  enriched subgroups.
• To compare distant relapse-free survival and overall survival by randomized arm.
• To compare invasive breast cancer-free survival after surgery between
  randomized arms in pCR and residual disease groups.
• To compare the safety and tolerability by randomized arm among those that initiate
  therapy.