Baden-württemberg, Germany

CATCH: Implementation of Genomics-guided Precision Medicine in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Study Flow CATCH has the goal to implement personalized oncology workflows into the clinic. The clinical precision oncology core backbone encompasses a streamlined diagnostic end-to-end pipeline: Patient screening and enrolment: Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients at initial diagnosis of locally-advanced-/ distant metastasis and any other clinical progress are screened for eligibility. The treating physician has to obtain written informed consent prior to enrolment. Collection of biomaterial: Fresh-frozen tumor tissue from progressive prognostic-relevant metastatic lesions is collected during standard-of-care routine procedures at study entry. Consecutive biopsies can be offered at progress. Blood samples are taken at baseline (V1) to account for germline controls and can be sequentially repeated at 3-monthly intervals for monitoring of therapy response. Processing and analyses of patient samples: Biomaterials are centrally processed (standard histology/IHC and pathology review for tumor content; analyte extraction, QC according to standardized, quality-controlled, accredited workflows (DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025). Analyte extraction on fresh-frozen tissue encompasses DNA, RNA and protein isolation. Molecular profiling (Sequencing): Genomic profiling (DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025) is centrally processed to ensure standardization and encompasses whole-genome sequencing (WGS) on fresh-frozen tissue biopsies or whole-exome sequencing (WES) on FFPE specimens (in case of unsuccessful biopsy sampling on recent lesion due to low tumor cell content) complemented by RNA-sequencing. Clinical bioinformatics /Data curation: Tumor- and treatment-relevant genomic aberrations together with standard clinical as well as histopathological parameters are analyzed and put into the clinical context to delineate biomarkers and actionable alterations as well as to tackle the underlying biology of treatment-resistance. Molecular Tumor Board (MTB): Molecular data and conclusive biomarker profiles are discussed by clinicians, bioinformaticians, molecular biologists, human geneticists and pathologists in a weekly interdisciplinary MTB established at NCT Heidelberg. Treatment-relevant biomarkers and actionable drug targets are validated independently. Therapeutic options are prioritized within a molecular report. Therapy Implementation: Patients will be informed in detail by the treating physician to discuss potential genetically-tailored treatment options. The major goal is to offer patients further interventional clinical trials and drive assignment towards genomics-guided matched biomarker / drug combinations. Follow-up / Documentation Schedule: Clinical documentation is conducted by authorized study personal at study entry in a certified electronic case report form (eCRF) and subsequently every 3 months for at least 3 years, at any staging interval or cancer-specific therapy change to generate a comprehensive patient registry. To ascertain comprehensive follow-up, only patients will be enrolled who will be treated locally at the involved trial sites. Molecular data will be systematically collected to drive translational exploratory research projects. The following data are collected and stored (baseline and follow-up assessments) - patient identifier /demographics (including sex, age at diagnosis, family history) - cancer type / medical history / characteristics diagnosis (including date of diagnosis) - clinical outcome / longitudinal disease assessments: relapse and progression - genomic and transcriptomic data - ECOG status - sample information (e.g. specimen type, tumor histological type, anatomical location, tissue analyses) - health-related Quality-of-Life (QoL) / Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) Translational scientific companion programs: Excess biomaterial not needed for the diagnostic precision oncology approach can be used for exploratory research (e.g. ex vivo approaches, liquid biopsies, immunophenotyping). Results / Outcome Evaluation:Molecular data will be analysed and interpreted on complementary levels. Biomarkers and molecular aberrations such as mutations, amplifications and aberrant gene expression are evaluated for their tumor-relevance and clinical potential to assign patients for specific clinical trials with targeted treatment approaches.

Age Related Effects Consuming Phaeodactylum Tricornutum

Due to a multifaceted redesign of all areas of life, older people face many nutritional challenges, such as cognitive change, sarcopenia and micronutrient deficiency. In addition to age-associated diseases, cognitive decline is usually a precursor to neurodegenerative processes, such as Alzheimer's disease. The full molecular mechanisms are still unknown, but classic aging mechanisms, such as oxidative stress and subclinical inflammation, play a role. Due to the changed life situation, there is a reduced need for energy, while the need for nutrients remains, which greatly increases the risk of malnutrition in old age. This results in an increasing prevalence of sarcopenia. The decrease in muscle mass and strength leads to functional limitations in the elderly and also promotes oxidative stress. This increases the need for antioxidant nutrients such as carotenoids and vitamins. Studies show that age-related chronic subclinical inflammation, such as occurs in the context of an omega-6 fatty acid (-FS) emphasized diet, plays a central role in the pathogenesis of age-associated diseases Due to this, the microalgae PT could be a goud supplier of nutrients like omega-3 FS, especially eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), which is otherwise found mainly in fatty fish, and Fucoxanthin, an antioxidant. The investigator study the change of omega-3, -6 and -9 FS in blood plasma, in erythrocytes, as well as the change of fucoxanthin and beta-carotene. The investigator measure blood parameters for safety and control the influence on the intestinal barrier.

Study of Standard Intensive Chemotherapy Versus Intensive Chemotherapy with CPX-351 in Adult Patients with Newly Diagnosed AML and Intermediate- or Adverse Genetics

Treatment Protocol for Children and Adolescents With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia - AIEOP-BFM ALL 2017

Patients are stratified into 4 early risk groups for therapy during the consolidation phase (T/early SR, T/early non-SR, pB/early non-HR, pB/early HR) and 5 risk groups for post-consolidation therapy (T/non-HR, T/HR, pB/SR, pB/MR, pB/HR). Risk stratification is based on immunophenotypic lineage, genetics of leukemic cells and treatment response on the basis of cytomorphology and methods for detection minimal residual disease. The trial includes four randomized study questions testing experimental treatments on top of the risk-stratified standard chemotherapy backbone: Primary study questions: Randomization R-eHR: Early High-risk (early HR) pB-ALL defined by genetics and/or inadequate treatment response over the course of induction: Can the probability of event-free survival (pEFS) from time of randomization be improved by additional therapy with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib during an extended consolidation treatment phase compared with standard extended consolidation? Randomization R-HR: High-risk (HR) pB-ALL defined by genetics and/or inadequate treatment response by the end of consolidation: Can the pEFS from time of randomization be improved by a treatment concept including two cycles of post-consolidation immunotherapy with blinatumomab (15 µg/m²/d for 28 days per cycle) plus 4 doses intrathecal Methotrexate replacing two conventional highly intensive chemotherapy courses? Randomization R-MR: Intermediate risk (MR) pB-ALL defined by genetics and intermediate MRD response: Can the probability of disease-free survival (pDFS) from time of randomization be improved by additional therapy with one cycle of post-reintensification immunotherapy with blinatumomab (15 µg/m²/d for 28 days)? Randomization R-T: Early non-standard risk (early non-SR) T-ALL patients defined by treatment response over the course of induction: Can the pEFS from time of randomization be improved by the extension of the standard of care consolidation phase by 14 days with an increase of the consolidation cumulative doses of Cyclophosphamide, Cytarabine and 6-Mercaptopurine by 50%? Secondary study questions: All randomizations: Can the overall survival be improved by the treatment in the experimental arm? All randomizations: What is the incidence of treatment-related toxicities and mortality in the experimental arm compared to the standard arm? Randomization R-eHR: Can the MRD load after consolidation treatment be reduced by the additional treatment with bortezomib? Randomization R-HR: Can treatment-related life-threatening complications and mortality during the intensified consolidation phase of high-risk treatment be reduced when replacing two intensive chemotherapy courses by two cycles of immunotherapy with blinatumomab? Randomization R-HR: What is the proportion of patients with insufficient MRD response to blinatumomab as defined in the protocol as compared to the MRD response after the HR-2' block in the control arm? Randomization R-HR: Can the MRD load after the first treatment cycle (HR 2'/blinatumomab) and the second cycle (HR-3'/blinatumomab) be reduced in the experimental arm when compared with conventional intensive chemotherapy? Randomization R-MR: What is the proportion of patients with positive MRD after reintensification Protocol II who become MRD-negative over the blinatumomab cycle compared to 4 weeks of standard maintenance therapy? Randomization R-T: Can the MRD load after consolidation treatment be reduced by extension of the consolidation phase? Standard-risk patients: Is the clinical outcome comparable to that obtained for standard-risk patients in study AIEOP-BFM ALL 2009? A small subgroup of patients at very high relapse risk is eligible for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after the intensified consolidation therapy phase. Patients with T-ALL and hyperleukocytosis (>=100,000/µL) and patients with CNS involvement at diagnosis (CNS3 status) are eligible for cranial irradiation with 12 Gy if age at time of irradiation is at least 4 years.

MRD-guided Treatment in NPM1mut AML Patients

Azacitidine is an effective and well established therapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In fact, in previous measurable residual disease (MRD) triggered studies, azacitidine allowed for a delay towards an overt hematological relapse in the majority of patients. However, the majority of patients ultimately relapsed even though they received multiple cycles of preemptive therapy. Hypomethylating agents (HMA) can enhance antitumor immune responses by upregulating tumor antigene expression, class 1 major histocompatibility complex, and co-stimulatory molecules, while concurrently dampening this antitumor effect by upregulating expression of checkpoint receptors or ligands, including programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4). Upregulation of these immune checkpoint molecules might be a mechanism of resistance to hypomethylating drugs. It has been shown that PD-L1 Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) is up-regulated acute myeloid leukemia cluster of differentiation 34 (CD34+) cells and importantly, patients resistant to treatment with hypomethylating agents such as azacitidine have an up-regulated expression compared to responding patients. In addition, it is known that PD-1 promoter demethylation correlates with a higher PD-1 expression and a worse response rate to hypomethylating agents as well as a shorter overall survival. In this context it is of note that PD-1 promoter demethylation can be caused by hypomethylating agents and hence the mode of action of the drug itself could cause resistance to therapy in these patients. This might also explain why hypomethylating agents are not curative and can not eradicate early leukemic progenitor cells. The investigators, therefore, perform a phase II trial evaluating a combination therapy of pembrolizumab and azacitidine in nucleophosmin (NPM1) mutated AML patients with MRD and impending hematological relapse after conventional chemotherapy. This trial aims at improving response rates observed with single agent azacitidine within the studies NCT00422890 and NCT01462578.

International Cooperative Treatment Protocol for Children and Adolescents With Lymphoblastic Lymphoma

The trial LBL 2018 is a collaborative prospective, multi-national, multi-center, randomized clinical trial for the treatment of children and adolescents with newly diagnosed lymphoblastic lymphoma. The LBL 2018 trial will be open for the qualified centers of following participating study Groups (core study cohort): AIEOP (Italy), BFM (Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Switzerland), BSPHO (Belgium), CoALL (Germany), DCOG (The Netherlands), NOPHO (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), PPLLSG (Poland), SEHOP (Spain) and SFCE (France). HKPHOSG (Hong Kong), HPOG (Hungary), ISPHO (Israel), NSPHO (Moscow), SHOP (Portugal) and SPS (Slovak Republic) start patient recruitment into the extended study cohort (without randomization). Over the trial period study groups may switch from the extended study cohort to the core study cohort. Primary objectives: - Randomization R1, all patients eligible: To examine, whether the cumulative incidence of relapses with involvement of the CNS (CNS relapse, pCICR) can be decreased by a modified induction therapy including dexamethasone (experimental arm) instead of prednisone (standard arm) - Randomization R2, only patients with high risk LBL eligible: to examine, whether the probability of event-free survival (pEFS) in these patients can be improved by receiving an intensified treatment arm versus a standard treatment arm (as used in the EURO-LB 02) Patients are stratified into 3 different risk groups according to CNS status, immunophenotype, genetic markers and stage of disease at diagnosis: high risk group (HR), standard risk group I/II (SR I/II) and standard risk group (SR). Patients in the risk groups SR I/II and SR are randomized (R1) in two arms after a cytoreductive prephase with prednisone. Patients in standard arm receive the standard induction phase with prednisone. Patients in the experimental arm receive an induction phase with dexamethasone instead of prednisone. In SR group, induction phase is followed by the consolidation phase, the non-HR extra-compartment phase with HD-MTX (high-dose methotrexate), the reintensification phase and the maintenance therapy for the total therapy duration of 24 months. In SR I/II group, patients receive no reintensification phase. The Induction phase is followed by the consolidation phase, the non-HR extra-compartment phase and the maintenance therapy for the total therapy duration of 24 months. Patients in the HR group are eligible for randomization (R1) as outlined above. In addition high risk patients are eligible for second randomization (R2) at the end of induction phase. In the standard arm, HR-patients receive the consolidation phase and the non-HR extra-compartment phase. In the experimental arm, HR-patients receive a consolidation phase including two additional doses of PEG asparaginase and the HR-intensified extra-compartment phase consisting of two high risk courses alternating with two HD-MTX courses. Either phase is followed by the reintensification phase and the maintenance therapy for the total therapy duration of 24 months. Patients with involvement of the CNS (CNS positive) are stratified to the high risk group (HR) and are eligible for both randomizations (R1 and R2). Additionally, patients with CNS involvement (CNS positive) receive intensified intrathecal therapy. Intrathecal therapy consists of TIT (triple intrathecal therapy) after diagnosis of CNS involvement. TIT is administered twice weekly until clearance of blasts in the cerebrospinal fluid is achieved. Further intrathecal therapy is provided at the same points of time as for patients without CNS involvement, but TIT instead of MTX IT. In addition, patients receive four additional doses of TIT during maintenance. Cranial irradiation is omitted for patients with CNS involvement.

Comparison of Therapies Before Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients With Higher Risk MDS and Oligoblastic AML

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) is considered the only potentially curative treatment option for MDS patients and is therefore often considered the standard treatment for mainly higher-risk MDS patients up to the age of 75 years. One common approach to "bridge" higher-risk MDS from the time of diagnosis to transplantation is a treatment with hypomethylating agents such as azacitidine due to its anticipated low toxicity profile. Alternative strategies are intensive 7+3 chemotherapy with anthracycline and cytarabine or direct and immediate transplantation. By this strategy the time interval for donor search can be significantly prolonged leading to a higher proportion of success.Nevertheless, not every patient initially eligible for transplantation undergoes this procedure subsequently. A direct prospective comparison of different therapeutic approaches as outlined above versus CPX-351 prior to alloHCT has not been performed so far and is subject of the PALOMA trial. We hypothesize that CPX-351 will lead to higher and more durable response rates including a more favourable safety profile and long-term outcome compared to currently used conventional care regimens approaches prior to alloHCT.

IMPEDE and IMPEDE-FX Embolization Plug Registry

Inotuzumab Ozogamicin and Conventional Chemotherapy In Patients Aged 56 Years and Older With ALL

Despite recent advances especially in younger patients, the prognosis of elderly patients with ALL remains dismal with a 5-year survival rate of around 20%, even after intensive chemotherapy. Inotuzumab ozogamicin (PF-05208773; CMC-544) is an antibody-targeted intravenous (IV) chemotherapy agent composed of an anti-CD22 antibody linked to calicheamicin, a potent cytotoxic antitumor antibiotic. After a prephase treatment, induction therapy will be based on three cycles of inotuzumab ozogamicin and intrathecal therapy only. This will be followed by a conventional maintenance therapy. All patients will be followed for cytological response, minimal residual disease and safety parameters.

Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy vs. Single Session Radiosurgery in Patients With Larger Brain Metastases

This is a prospective, multicenter randomized trial comparing local control and side effects after fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy with 12 x 4 Gy and single session radiosurgery according to RTOG 9005 in patients with larger brain metastases (2-4 cm). Patients will be randomized to either fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy with 12 x 4 Gy or radiosurgery with 1 x 18 Gy (2-3 cm) or 1 x 15 Gy (3-4 cm) as defined by the RTOG 9005. Randomization will be stratified by metastasis volume and histology.