Clinical Trials Actively Recruiting

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• To compare the non-inferiority of bilateral salpingectomy (BLS) with delayed oophorectomy to bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer among women with deleterious BRCA1 germ-line mutations.

Secondary Objectives:

• To prospectively assess estrogen deprivation symptoms in BLS patients as measured by the FACTES sub-scale compared to women in the BSO arm.
• To determine if health-related QOL (FACT) is negatively impacted by menopausal symptoms (menopausal symptom checklist-MSCL), sexual dysfunction (FSFI), and cancer distress (IES) in women who have undergone BLS, in comparison to normative data (MSCL/FACT-ES) and data from BSO patients.
• To assess medical decision making, as measured by the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Decision Regret Scale (DRS), and determine factors associated with the risk of reducing surgical treatment choice.
• To assess adverse events, graded using CTCAE v5.0.

Objective:

PHASE 1

Primary Objectives:

• Assess safety and tolerability of NUV‑1511 in advanced solid tumors
• Identify recommended dosing schedule(s) and corresponding RP2D(s) for Phase 2

Secondary Objectives:

• Explore preliminary efficacy of NUV-1511
• Characterize the PK profiles of NUV-1511

PHASE 2

Primary Objectives:

• Evaluate the efficacy of NUV-1511 in advanced solid tumors and selected tumor type(s)
• Confirm the optimal NUV-1511 dosing schedule, dose level, and target tumor types for further development

Secondary Objectives:

• Further evaluate the safety and efficacy of NUV-1511

Objective:

Primary Objectives:

• To evaluate the anti-tumor activity of genetically modified autologous T-cells (ADP-A2M4CD8) as monotherapy and in combination with nivolumab in HLA-A*02 positive subjects with MAGE-A4 positive recurrent ovarian cancer

Secondary Objectives:

• To evaluate the safety and tolerability of genetically modified autologous T-cells (ADP-A2M4CD8) as monotherapy and in combination with nivolumab in HLA-A*02 positive subjects with MAGE-A4 positive recurrent ovarian cancer
• To further evaluate the anti-tumor activity of genetically modified autologous T-cells (ADP-A2M4CD8) as monotherapy and in combination with nivolumab in HLA-A*02 positive subjects with MAGE-A4 positive recurrent ovarian cancer
• To characterize the surrogates of treatment effect

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• To evaluate the antitumor activity of nemvaleukin alfa (‘nemvaleukin’, ALKS 4230)in combination with pembrolizumab as compared with chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer

Secondary Objectives:

• To evaluate the antitumor activity of nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab as compared with chemotherapy
• To evaluate the safety of nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab as compared with chemotherapy

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• To compare the progression-free survival (PFS) of the combination of avutometinib plus defactinib vs Investigator’s Choice of Treatment (ICT) in patients with recurrent LGSOC

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare the combination of avutometinib plus defactinib vs ICT in patients with recurrent LGSOC with regard to additional efficacy parameters
• To characterize the safety and tolerability of combination avutometinib plus defactinib vs ICT in patients with recurrent LGSOC
• To determine the exposure of avutometinib and defactinib in patients with recurrent LGSOC treated with combination of avutometinib plus defactinib
• To assess the health-related quality of life and disease related symptoms in patients with recurrent LGSOC treated with combination avutometinib plus defactinib vs ICT

Objective:

Primary Objectives:

• To evaluate the efficacy of selinexor compared to placebo as maintenance therapy

Key Secondary Objectives:

• To compare overall OS in selinexor and placebo arms

Secondary Objectives:

• To evaluate the safety and tolerability of selinexor
• To compare selinexor and placebo for time to first subsequent therapy
• To compare selinexor and placebo for time to second subsequent therapy
• To compare selinexor and placebo for time until second progression
• To assess the efficacy of selinexor compared to placebo, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR)
• To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• To compare the rates of lower extremity limb dysfunction (defined as a ≥4-point increase in GCLQ symptom score from baseline) in patients with apparent uterine confined endometrial cancer randomized to one of two lymphatic assessment strategies at time of hysterectomy:
  
  • Arm 1: Sentinel lymph node mapping followed by side-specific lymphadenectomy on sides without a SLN identified according to an NCCN Guidelines approved algorithm.
  • Arm 2: Sentinel lymph node mapping according to an NCCN Guidelines approved algorithm followed by bilateral pelvic +/- para-aortic lymphadenectomy.

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare changes in lower extremity limb circumference in patients with apparent uterine confined endometrial cancer randomized to one of two lymphatic assessment strategies at time of hysterectomy. A subset of study sites will also assess limb changes over time using lower extremity bioimpedance devices.
• To validate the test characteristics of a SLN mapping algorithm including SLN detection rates, rate of perioperative complications, rate of identifying lymphatic metastases, and detection of micrometastases using pathologic ultra-staging.

Objective:

Primary Objective:

• The primary objective is to determine Progression-free Survival (PFS) by RECIST 1.1.

Key Secondary Objectives:

• To determine Objective Response Rate (ORR) and Duration of Response (DOR) by RECIST 1.1, PFS by RECIST 1.1 (in modified population), PFS by iRECIST, Overall Survival (OS), and safety.

Key Other Objectives:

• To determine ORR by the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) CA-125 criteria, and Clinical Benefit Rate [CBR = (CR + PR + SD ≥ 15 weeks)/total # of patients evaluated by RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST]. Additional analyses of efficacy endpoints in modified population are included.

Objective:
Primary Objective:

• To examine if letrozole monotherapy/maintenance is non-inferior to IV paclitaxel/carboplatin and maintenance letrozole with respect to PFS in women with stage II-IV primary low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum after primary surgical cytoreduction.

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare the nature, frequency and maximum degree of toxicity as assessed by CTCAE v5.0 for each treatment arm.
• To compare the relative frequency of objective tumor response in those with measurable disease after cytoreductive surgery for each treatment arm.
• To compare overall survival for each treatment arm.
• To compare the CT\L and L\L arms with respect to patients adherence to letrozole therapy as measured by pill counts.

Objective:

Aim 1: To determine the effectiveness of the ASQ-GYO QPL at improving patient self-efficacy, distress, physician trust, and knowledge compared to usual care during new patient gynecologic oncology visits at KCI. All patients will be asked to complete the 20-question Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) instrument, a one-question National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer, and a 5-question Likert-scale Trust in Physicians scale on both pre- and post-visit surveys. All patients will be asked 10 Likert-scale knowledge-based questions regarding their diagnosis and plan on the post-visit survey.

• The primary endpoint of this trial will be change in pre- and post-visit survey self-efficacy scores as determined by the PEPPI instrument compared by trial group.
• Secondary endpoints will include change in pre- and post-visit survey NCCN Distress Thermometer scores and Trust in Physicians scores as well as post-visit survey knowledge scores compared by trial group.

Aim 2: To determine the acceptability of the ASQ-GYO QPL with new gynecologic oncology patients.

• Among Intervention group participants we will ask 15 Likert-scale and dichotomous questions in the post-visit survey regarding patients’ feelings about and the acceptability of the ASQ-GYO QPL.