Clinical Trials Actively Recruiting

Primary Objectives:

• To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicities
  (DLTs) for combination of ATR inhibitor (M1774) and BET inhibitor (ZEN003694) in
  women with recurrent clear cell, endometrioid, and platinum resistant high grade serous
  ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) and clear cell and endometrioid endometrial carcinoma
  irrespective of ARID1A status (PART I).
• To determine safety and tolerability in ARID1A pathogenic alteration (ARID1AMUT) and
  ARID1A wildtype (ARID1AWT) cohorts (ARID1A is an integral biomarker) in an
  expansion phase (PART II).
• To determine change in pharmacodynamic biomarker expression of ƔH2AX (for ATR
  inhibition, integral biomarker) from pre-treatment and on-treatment tumor samples in
  ARID1AMUT and ARID1AWT expansion cohorts by immunohistochemistry (IHC) (PART
  II).

Secondary Objectives:

• To evaluate change in pharmacodynamic biomarker expression of cmyc (for BET inhibition,
  integrated biomarker) from pre-treatment and on-treatment tumor samples in ARID1AMUT
  and ARID1AWT expansion cohorts by Digital Spatial Profiling (DSP) (PART II).
• To evaluate change in pharmacodynamic biomarker expression of ƔH2AX (for ATR
  inhibition, integrated biomarker) from pre-treatment and on-treatment tumor samples in
  ARID1AMUT and ARID1AWT expansion cohorts by DSP (PART II).
• To investigate if ARID1A protein by IHC and DSP correlates with ARID1A pathogenic
  alteration in pre-treatment tumor biopsy samples (PART II).
• To estimate objective response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) at 6 months in
  ARID1A pathogenic alteration and wildtype cohorts (PART II).

Dual Primary Objectives:

• To compare progression-free survival (PFS) in frail or selected intermediate fit
  Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) participants treated with VRd-Lite
  induction followed by Lenalidomide maintenance (Arm 1) versus DRd induction
  followed by Lenalidomide maintenance (Arm 2).
• To compare overall survival (OS) in frail or selected intermediate fit NDMM
  participants treated with VRd-Lite induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance
  (Arm 1) versus DRd induction followed by lenalidomide and daratumumab and
  hyaluronidase-fihj maintenance (Arm 3).

Secondary Objectives

• To compare PFS in Arm 1 versus Arm 3
• To compare OS in Arm 1 versus Arm 2.
• To compare OS in Arm 2 versus Arm 3, contingent upon significant results from both dual primary endpoints in favor of the respective experimental arms.
• To compare the overall response rate (ORR) of Arm 1 against the ORR of Arm 2 and Arm 3.
• To assess the safety of Arm 1 with the safety of Arm 2 and Arm 3.
• To explore veinous and arterial thrombo-embolism (VTE) incidence in participants receiving lenalidomide during induction across the three study arms.
• To describe median time to response (CR or better per IMWG criteria, VGPR or better per IMWG criteria, PR or better per IMWG criteria) on the three study arms.

Primary Objective:

• To compare major organ deterioration progression-free survival between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of this study.

Secondary Objectives

• To compare overall survival (OS) between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of this study.
• To compare rates of cardiac and renal organ responses between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of this study.
• To compare rates of cardiac and renal organ progression between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of the study.
• To compare the frequency and severity of toxicities between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ASCT arms of this study.
• To compare minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rates between participants randomized to the ASCT and non-ACST arms of this study.

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.

Primary Objective:

De-Intensification Study:

• To determine whether men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) prostate cancer and lower Decipher genomic risk (Decipher score < 0.40) treated with RT alone instead of 6 months ADT + RT experience non-inferior rate of distant metastasis.

Intensification Study:

• To determine whether men with NCCN UIR prostate cancer who are in the higher genomic risk (Decipher score ≥0.40) will have a superior metastasis-free survival through treatment intensification with darolutamide added to the standard of RT plus 6 months ADT.

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare overall survival (OS) between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions.
• To compare time to PSA failure between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions.
• To compare metastasis free survival (MFS) based on conventional imaging between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and de-intensification intervention (RT alone).
• To compare MFS based on either conventional and/or molecular imaging between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions.
• To compare cumulative incidence of locoregional failure based upon conventional imaging and/ or biopsy between standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months ADT plus darolutamide) interventions.
• To compare cumulative incidence of distant metastasis based upon conventional imaging between standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and intensification intervention (RT plus 6 months ADT plus darolutamide).
• To compare cumulative incidence of distant metastasis based upon either conventional and/or molecular imaging between standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions.
• To compare prostate cancer-specific mortality between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions.
• To compare sexual and hormonal related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions.
• To compare fatigue, as measured by the PROMIS-Fatigue instrument, between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions.
• To compare cognition, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Cognitive (FACT-Cog) perceived cognitive abilities subscale, between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT alone) or intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions.

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

Primary Objective:

• To compare breast cancer event-free survival between participants randomized to standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone versus standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy concurrent with durvalumab.

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare pathologic complete response rates (ypT0/is, ypN0) in participants randomized to standard of care chemotherapy alone vs. standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy concurrent with durvalumab
• To compare residual cancer burden distribution between participants randomized to standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs. standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy concurrent with durvalumab
• To compare distant relapse-free survival between participants randomized to standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs. standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy concurrent with durvalumab
• To compare overall survival between participants randomized to standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs. standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy concurrent with durvalumab
• To compare the frequency and severity of toxicities between participants randomized to standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs. standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy concurrent with durvalumab among those who initiate the assigned treatment.

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”)

Co-Primary Objectives:

• To compare the 3-year milestone progression free survival (PFS) probabilities in participants with previously untreated, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma randomized to the rituximab arm versus the mosunetuzumab arm.
• To compare progression free survival (PFS) in participants with previously untreated, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma randomized to the rituximab arm versus the mosunetuzumab arm.

Secondary Objectives:

• To compare overall survival (OS) between participants randomized to rituximab versus mosunetuzumab.
• To compare overall response rates at the Week 40 assessment between participants randomized to rituximab versus mosunetuzumab.
• To compare event free survival (EFS) between participants randomized to rituximab versus mosunetuzumab.
• To compare the frequency and severity of toxicities between participants randomized to rituximab versus mosunetuzumab.
• To compare the restricted chance of longer PFS (2-6 years) between participants randomized to rituximab versus mosunetuzumab.

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.