5 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
The goal of this clinical research study is to learn if pre-operative radiation therapy after starting immune checkpoint inhibition can help patients with sinonasal or anorectal melanoma have better outcomes
This phase II trial tests whether nivolumab in combination with cabozantinib works in patients with mucosal melanoma. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as nivolumab, may help the body's immune system attack the cancer, and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Cabozantinib may stop the growth of tumor cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. It works by blocking the action of an abnormal protein that signals tumor cells to multiply. This helps stop the spread of tumor cells. Giving nivolumab in combination with cabozantinib could prevent cancer from returning.
The researchers are doing this study to find out whether the combination of axitinib and nivolumab is an effective and safe treatment for people with advanced or metastatic mucosal melanoma that has not been treated before. The researchers think that a combination of axitinib and nivolumab may help people with this disease because both drugs target and block proteins that play a role in cancer cell survival and growth. The researchers think the drugs may be more effective if given in combination rather than on their own.
The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that 1)intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or proton radiation therapy would result in improved local control rate and lowered toxicity compared to conventional radiotherapy, and 2) proton radiation therapy would result in equivalent or improved local control rate with similar or lower toxicity compared to IMRT, in the treatment of locally advanced sinonasal malignancy. Data from retrospective studies suggest that IMRT or proton radiation therapy resulted in promising outcome in patients with sinonasal malignancy. To this date, no prospective study has been conducted to evaluate the outcome of sinonasal cancer treated with IMRT or proton radiation therapy. This Phase II trial is the first prospective study conducted to determine the treatment outcome and toxicity of IMRT or proton in the treatment of sinonasal cancer. IMRT and proton radiation therapy are the two most established and most commonly employed advanced radiotherapy techniques for the treatment of sinonasal cancer. It is highly controversial whether one is superior to the other in terms of local control and toxicity outcome. It is also not clear if a subset of patients would benefit more from one treatment technology versus the other. Due to the rarity and heterogeneity of sinonasal malignancies and the fact that proton beam is only available at a few centers in the United States, it is not feasible at present to do a Phase III study randomizing patients between IMRT and proton radiation therapy. In this study, a planned secondary analysis will be performed, comparing the treatment and toxicity outcome between IMRT and proton. The data on the IMRT and proton comparison from this trial will be used to design future multi-center prospective trials and to determine if randomized trial is necessary. In this study, the treatment technique employed for an individual case will not be determined by the treating physician(s), but rather by the most advanced technology available at the treating institution for the treatment of the sinonasal cancer. At the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), proton beam therapy will be used for patients who meet the eligibility criteria. For institutions where protons are not available or institutions where the proton planning systems have not been optimized, IMRT exclusively will be used for the treatment of sinonasal cancer. Patient and tumor characteristics are expected to be comparable between IMRT- and proton- institutions
Phase I study to examine safety of the addition of concurrent tarlatamab with standard palliative and consolidative RT regimens , with a main cohort of N=20-24 patients with extracranial anatomic radiation sites. I) After lead in of 10 patients demonstrating safety of treatment, allow for expansion to cranial sites of disease (N=6-10) with continued enrollment in main cohort II) If toxicity criteria is not met in concurrent RT tarlatamab cohort, we will continue with sequential RT, either A) delivered within 7 days prior to cycle 1 day 1, or B) delivered during cycle 1 -2 but with pre- and post-RT washout of 7 days with no drug during RT, to examine safety in a temporally spaced setting. III) If sequential tarlatamab and radiation is not deemed safe, we would allow for continued enrollment to assess efficacy of drug sans radiation treatment, enriching for tumors not of small cell lung cancer histology and allowing for patients without sites amenable to RT. A nested phase II study will attempt to assess for ORR and safety of study intervention amongst tumors not of small cell lung cancer histology.