Clinical Trials Search at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Pilot Study of Bone Mineral Density Changes During Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment and work by blocking protein interactions that normally prevent the immune system from recognizing and destroying cancer cells. However, these agents, now approved for over 15 types of cancers and for both early-stage and metastatic disease, are capable of causing inflammation in any organ system of the body that can lead to organ damage, dysfunction, and even death in rare cases. Some patients may suffer acute and treatable complications like joint pain, but some may have irreversible complications like hypothyroidism that requires daily, life-long medication. It is therefore important to fully understand the different types of damage ICIs can cause to better monitor patients receiving ICI therapy.
A rising concern from recent reports in the literature is that ICIs may weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. In this study, the investigators aim to characterize how ICIs impact the bone by examining several factors in patients undergoing curative-intent ICI treatment either alone or in combination with chemotherapy: bone mineral density, bone volume, and markers of bone turnover in the blood. The study will use two imaging techniques to assess bone mineral density and volume. DXA (dual X-ray absorptiometry) imaging uses low-dose X-rays to measure how dense (or strong) bones are and is often used to diagnose or assess the risk of osteoporosis. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HRpQCT) is a 3D imaging technology that can quantify bone structure and volume and offers high resolution that can be used to assess bone in smaller bones of the peripheral skeleton.
The investigators hypothesize that ICI treatment will weaken bones and increase the risk of fractures. As ICI therapy is relatively new, a rising number of patients may be at risk of fractures or have low bone density that is not being monitored because there are no guidelines in place notifying physicians of this potential risk to patients. This is study will provide important preliminary data that will be the basis for larger studies in the future aiming to better monitor and potentially treat bone weakening in patients treated with ICIs to reduce the pain, inconvenience, and complications from fragility fractures.
A rising concern from recent reports in the literature is that ICIs may weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. In this study, the investigators aim to characterize how ICIs impact the bone by examining several factors in patients undergoing curative-intent ICI treatment either alone or in combination with chemotherapy: bone mineral density, bone volume, and markers of bone turnover in the blood. The study will use two imaging techniques to assess bone mineral density and volume. DXA (dual X-ray absorptiometry) imaging uses low-dose X-rays to measure how dense (or strong) bones are and is often used to diagnose or assess the risk of osteoporosis. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HRpQCT) is a 3D imaging technology that can quantify bone structure and volume and offers high resolution that can be used to assess bone in smaller bones of the peripheral skeleton.
The investigators hypothesize that ICI treatment will weaken bones and increase the risk of fractures. As ICI therapy is relatively new, a rising number of patients may be at risk of fractures or have low bone density that is not being monitored because there are no guidelines in place notifying physicians of this potential risk to patients. This is study will provide important preliminary data that will be the basis for larger studies in the future aiming to better monitor and potentially treat bone weakening in patients treated with ICIs to reduce the pain, inconvenience, and complications from fragility fractures.
Miscellaneous
N/A
Sharpe, Jessica
NCT07555210
VICCMD25019
A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Fruquintinib and TAS-102 as Compared to Fruquintinib in Patients With Refractory Advanced/Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Fruquintinib and TAS-102 as Compared to Fruquintinib in Patients with Refractory Advanced/Metastatic Microsatellite Stable Colorectal Cancer
Not Available
II
Not Available
NCT06992258
VICCGI25032
Study Evaluating [18F]NOTA-ABY030 for Safety and Tolerability of Indeterminate Primary and/or Metastatic Disease in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Head/Neck
Head/Neck
Head/Neck
I
Rosenthal, Eben
VICCHNP25055
Expanded Access Program (EAP) for Obecabtagene Autoleucel (Obe-Cel) Out-of-Specification (OOS) in Adult Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Leukemia
Leukemia
Leukemia
N/A
Oluwole, Olalekan
VICC-CTT25006
Neoadjuvant Neratinib in Stage I-III HER2-Mutated Lobular Breast Cancers
This phase II trial tests how well neratinib prior to the primary treatment (neoadjuvant) works in treating patients with stage I-III HER2 mutated lobular breast cancers. Neratinib is in a class of medications called kinase inhibitors. It works by blocking the action of an abnormal protein that signals cancer cells to multiply. This helps slow or stop the spread of cancer cells. Giving neratinib in addition to normal therapy may work better in treating cancer than the endocrine therapy patients would normally receive.
Not Available
II
Not Available
NCT05919108
VICC-NCBRE23172
N-803 and PD-L1 t-haNK Combined With Bevacizumab for Recurrent or Progressive Glioblastoma
This study consists of 2 portions. The phase 2 portion is an open-label, single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NAI, PD-L1 t-haNK, and bevacizumab combination therapy in participants with recurrent or progressive GBM. The phase 2B portion is an open-label, randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety for the following 2 experimental arms in participants with recurrent or progressive GBM: NAI, bevacizumab, and TTFields combination therapy (Arm A) or NAI, PD-L1 t-haNK, bevacizumab, and TTFields combination therapy (Arm B).
Phase 2 Treatment for all enrolled participants will consist of repeated cycles of 28 days for a maximum treatment period of 76 weeks (19 cycles) as follows: Every 2 weeks (Days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle)
Fourteen (14) participants were enrolled in the phase 2 portion of this study as of the date of this v02 protocol. No additional participants will be administered therapy in phase 2.
Phase 2B Participants will be randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 experimental arms (Arm A or Arm B). Treatment for all enrolled participants will consist of repeated 8-week cycles for a maximum treatment period of up to 80 weeks (10 cycles). Experimental Arm (A): Every 2 weeks (Days 1, 15, 29, and 43 of an 8-week cycle)
Up to twenty (20) participants will be randomized in phase 2B (up to 10 participants/arm.
Duration of Treatment:
Participants will receive study treatment for up to 76 weeks during phase 2 (up to 19 repeated 28-day cycles) and for up to 80 weeks (up to 10 repeated 8-week cycles) during phase 2B or until they report unacceptable toxicity (not corrected with dose reduction), withdraw consent, or if the Investigator feels it is no longer in the participant's best interest to continue treatment. Treatment may also be discontinued if the participant has confirmed PD per iRANO, unless the participant is clinically stable and is considered potentially deriving benefit per Investigator's assessment.
Duration of Follow-up:
Participants who discontinue study treatment should remain in the study for follow-up. Participants should be followed for collection of survival status, posttreatment therapies (phase 2 and phase 2B), and medical history (phase 2B only) every 12 weeks ( 2 weeks) for the first 2 years then yearly thereafter for an additional 3 years. The maximum duration of follow-up is 5 years (260 weeks).
Phase 2 Treatment for all enrolled participants will consist of repeated cycles of 28 days for a maximum treatment period of 76 weeks (19 cycles) as follows: Every 2 weeks (Days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle)
Fourteen (14) participants were enrolled in the phase 2 portion of this study as of the date of this v02 protocol. No additional participants will be administered therapy in phase 2.
Phase 2B Participants will be randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 experimental arms (Arm A or Arm B). Treatment for all enrolled participants will consist of repeated 8-week cycles for a maximum treatment period of up to 80 weeks (10 cycles). Experimental Arm (A): Every 2 weeks (Days 1, 15, 29, and 43 of an 8-week cycle)
Up to twenty (20) participants will be randomized in phase 2B (up to 10 participants/arm.
Duration of Treatment:
Participants will receive study treatment for up to 76 weeks during phase 2 (up to 19 repeated 28-day cycles) and for up to 80 weeks (up to 10 repeated 8-week cycles) during phase 2B or until they report unacceptable toxicity (not corrected with dose reduction), withdraw consent, or if the Investigator feels it is no longer in the participant's best interest to continue treatment. Treatment may also be discontinued if the participant has confirmed PD per iRANO, unless the participant is clinically stable and is considered potentially deriving benefit per Investigator's assessment.
Duration of Follow-up:
Participants who discontinue study treatment should remain in the study for follow-up. Participants should be followed for collection of survival status, posttreatment therapies (phase 2 and phase 2B), and medical history (phase 2B only) every 12 weeks ( 2 weeks) for the first 2 years then yearly thereafter for an additional 3 years. The maximum duration of follow-up is 5 years (260 weeks).
Not Available
II
Not Available
NCT06061809
VICC-DTNEU24006
Measuring if Immunotherapy Plus Chemotherapy is Better Than Chemotherapy Alone for Patients With Aggressive Poorly Differentiated Sarcomas
This phase III trial compares the effect of immunotherapy (pembrolizumab) plus chemotherapy (doxorubicin) to chemotherapy (doxorubicin) alone in treating patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) or a related poorly differentiated sarcoma that has spread from where it first started (primary site) to other places in the body (metastatic) or that cannot be removed by surgery (unresectable). Doxorubicin is in a class of medications called anthracyclines. Doxorubicin damages the cell's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and may kill tumor cells. It also blocks a certain enzyme needed for cell division and DNA repair. A monoclonal antibody is a type of protein that can bind to certain targets in the body, such as molecules that cause the body to make an immune response (antigens). Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as pembrolizumab, may help the body's immune system attack the cancer, and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Adding immunotherapy (pembrolizumab) to the standard chemotherapy (doxorubicin) may help patients with metastatic or unresectable DDLPS, UPS or a related poorly differentiated sarcoma live longer without having disease progression.
Not Available
III
Davis, Elizabeth
NCT06422806
VICC-NTSAR24139
Clinical Study of Ivonescimab for First-line Treatment of Metastatic NSCLC Patients With High PD-L1
Clinical study of ivonescimab for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC patients with high PD-L1. Evaluating overall survival and progression free survival.
Not Available
III
Not Available
NCT06767514
VICCTHO25003
Comparing Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) Biopsy With Standard Neck Dissection for Patients With Early-Stage Oral Cavity Cancer
Head/Neck
Head/Neck
This phase II/III trial studies how well sentinel lymph node biopsy works and compares sentinel lymph node biopsy surgery to standard neck dissection as part of the treatment for early-stage oral cavity cancer. Sentinel lymph node biopsy surgery is a procedure that removes a smaller number of lymph nodes from your neck because it uses an imaging agent to see which lymph nodes are most likely to have cancer. Standard neck dissection, such as elective neck dissection, removes many of the lymph nodes in your neck. Using sentinel lymph node biopsy surgery may work better in treating patients with early-stage oral cavity cancer compared to standard elective neck dissection.
Head/Neck
II/III
Topf, Michael
NCT04333537
NRGHN006
Disposable Perfusion Phantom for Accurate DCE (Dynamic Contrast Enhanced)-MRI Measurement of Pancreatic Cancer Therapy Response
Pancreatic
Pancreatic
The goal of this study is to investigate whether the therapeutic response of pancreatic tumors can be accurately assessed using quantitative DCE-MRI, when the inter/intra-scanner variability is reduced using the Point-of-care Portable Perfusion Phantom, P4. The intra-scanner variability over time leads to errors in therapy monitoring, while the inter-scanner variability impedes the comparison of data among institutes. The P4 is small enough to be imaged concurrently in the bore of a standard MRI scanner with a patient for real-time quality assurance. The P4 is safe, inexpensive and easily operable, thus it has great potential for widespread and routine clinical use for accurate diagnosis, prognosis and therapy monitoring.
This study has identified two arms, one arm is healthy individuals that will undergo DCE MRI at three different MRI locations to establish baseline results. The healthy volunteers will undergo these MRIs prior to the second arm, which contains patients with pancreatic cancer. The pancreatic cancer patients will only have DCE MRI done at one location.
This study has identified two arms, one arm is healthy individuals that will undergo DCE MRI at three different MRI locations to establish baseline results. The healthy volunteers will undergo these MRIs prior to the second arm, which contains patients with pancreatic cancer. The pancreatic cancer patients will only have DCE MRI done at one location.
Pancreatic
N/A
Xu, Junzhong
NCT04588025
VICCGI2099