Ettenheim, Germany

Two Studies for Patients With Unfavorable Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Testing Less Intense Treatment for Patients With a Low Gene Risk Score and Testing a More Intense Treatment for Patients With a Higher Gene Risk Score, The Guidance Trial

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. 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 radiation therapy (RT) alone instead of 6 months androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + RT experience non-inferior rate of distant metastasis. (De-intensification study) II. 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. (Intensification study) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. 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. II. To compare time to prostate specific antigen (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. III. 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). IV. 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. V. 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. VI. 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). VII. 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. VIII. 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. IX. 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. X. To compare fatigue, as measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (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. XI. 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. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare changes in cardio-metabolic markers, including body mass index, lipids, blood glucose, complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), and hemoglobin (Hgb) A1c, 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. II. To compare PSA failure-free survival with non-castrate testosterone and no additional therapies 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. III. To compare cumulative incidence of locoregional failure 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. IV. To compare castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) 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. V. To compare bowel and urinary function 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. VI. To compare time to testosterone recovery (defined as a T > 200ng/dL) between the standard of care (RT plus 6 months of ADT) and intensification (RT plus 6 months of ADT plus darolutamide) interventions. VII. To compare health utilities, as measured by the European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L), 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. VIII. To develop and assess a machine learning/artificial intelligence algorithm for radiotherapy planning and/or quality assurance. IX. To perform future translational correlative studies using biological data, Decipher results, and clinical outcomes. OUTLINE: DE-INTENSIFICATION STUDY: Patients with Decipher score < 0.40 are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients undergo radiation therapy (RT) using a recognized regimen (2-3 days a week or 5 days a week for 2-11 weeks) in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients undergo RT as Arm I. Patients also receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) consisting of leuprolide, goserelin, buserelin, histrelin, triptorelin, degarelix, or relugolix at the discretion of the treating physician, for 6 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients may also receive bicalutamide or flutamide for 0, 30 or 180 days. INTENSIFICATION STUDY: Patients with Decipher score >= 0.40 are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM III: Patients receive treatment as in Arm II. ARM IV: Patients receive RT and ADT as in Arm II. Patients also receive darolutamide orally (PO) twice daily (BID). Treatment repeats every 90 days for up to 2 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months.

Comparing Cisplatin Every Three Weeks to Cisplatin Weekly When Combined With Radiation for Patients With Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To determine whether radiation with cisplatin weekly is superior in terms of acute toxicity, as measured by the T-scores (TAME method), to radiation with cisplatin every 3 weeks for patients with locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). (Phase II) II. To determine whether radiation with cisplatin weekly is non-inferior to radiation with cisplatin every 3 weeks in terms of overall survival (OS) for patients with locoregionally advanced SCCHN. (Phase III) III. To determine whether radiation with cisplatin weekly is superior in terms of acute toxicity, as measured by the T-scores (TAME method), to radiation with cisplatin every 3 weeks for patients with locoregionally advanced SCCHN. (Phase III) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess and compare progression-free survival (PFS) between arms. II. To assess and compare locoregional failure and distant metastasis between arms. III. To assess acute and late toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] version 5.0). IV. To assess patient-reported outcomes quality of life (PRO/QOL), as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck (FACT-H&N) (primary PRO), between arms. V. To assess hearing loss, as measured by audiograms and the modified TUNE grading scale between arms. VI. To assess hearing loss, as measured by speech audiometry Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant word scores and tympanometry (subject to the modified TUNE grading scale testing results; otherwise, it will be an exploratory objective). VII. To assess hearing-related QOL as measured by the Hearing Handicap Inventory-Screening (HHIA-S) (secondary PRO), between arms. VIII. To assess long-term PFS, OS, and toxicity between arms. IX. To assess 3-year restricted-mean survival time for OS and PFS between arms (if long-term update is warranted). EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVE: I. To collect blood and tissue specimens for future translational science studies. For instance, to examine how germline and somatic genetic variants, such as TP53, CDKN2A, PIK3CA, PTEN, NFE2L2, and KEAP1, may influence cisplatin-related efficacy and toxicity, and to assess the effect of regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) use and genomic activation of PIK3CA (mutation or amplification) or loss of PTEN, the negative regulator of PI3K, on disease-free survival or overall survival. OUTLINE: Patients are assigned to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I (NON-OROPHARYNGEAL CANCER [OPC]/p16-NEGATIVE OPC group and p16-NEGATIVE OPC/CANCER OF UNKNOWN PRIMARY [CUP] group): Patients undergo radiation therapy over 5 fractions a week for a total of 33-35 fractions in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also receive cisplatin intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks (Q3W) (on days 1, 22, and 43) during radiation therapy in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II (NON-OROPHARYNGEAL CANCER [OPC]/p16-NEGATIVE OPC group and p16-NEGATIVE OPC/CANCER OF UNKNOWN PRIMARY [CUP] group): Patients undergo radiation therapy over 5 fractions a week for a total of 33-35 fractions in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also receive cisplatin IV once a week (QW) for 7 weeks during radiation therapy in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients undergo computed tomography (CT) scan, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or position emission tomography (PET) scan throughout the study.

Five or Ten Year Colonoscopy for 1-2 Non-Advanced Adenomatous Polyps

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States (US). The lifetime risk of colorectal cancer in both men and women in the US is approximately 6%. About 93% of colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses are in patients older than 50 years (Siegel 2014). Randomized controlled trials show that screening for CRC significantly decreases CRC incidence and mortality (Schoen 2012, Atkin 2010, Mandel 1999, Mandel 2000). CRC screening has received a Grade A recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force. In the U.S., colonoscopy is the most utilized screening modality for CRC. On a population basis, screening rates, which were around 40-50%, have now increased to 65%, and a goal to increase to 80% compliance is being promoted (CDC 2011, CDC 2013, Meester 2015). Adenomatous polyps are the acknowledged precursors of colorectal cancer. Identification and removal of adenomas is the mechanism by which screening is effective in reducing CRC incidence and subsequent mortality. "Advanced" adenomas are adenomas which are greater than or equal to 1 cm, or have a "villous" component (tubulovillous or villous), or have foci of high grade dysplasia. Advanced adenomas are associated with increased long-term risk of cancer, even years after colonoscopy (Click 2018). The prevalence of advanced adenomas at screening colonoscopy is 5-10% (Ferlitsch 2011, Imperiale 2014). Non-advanced adenomas are adenomas greater than 1 cm with neither villous components nor high grade dysplasia. Non-advanced adenomas are much more common than advanced adenomas, present in around 30% of colonoscopy exams (Ferlitsch 2011, Imperiale 2014). After detection of adenomas, patients are advised to return periodically for surveillance colonoscopy. Patients with 1-2 non-advanced adenomas are recommended by guidelines to return in 5 - 10 years for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy (Lieberman 2012). However, there are no guidelines on how to triage individuals to 5 as opposed to 10 years. Furthermore, there is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy in reducing CRC incidence. A retrospective study in patients with advanced adenomas demonstrated benefit (Atkin 2017), but the study was not randomized and did not include patients with 1-2 non-advanced adenomas. The only randomized trial of surveillance colonoscopy was reported in the early 1990's, when participants were randomized to 3 vs. 1- and 3- year surveillance (Winawer 1993). No difference in advanced adenoma detection was observed when comparing participants examined at the two screening intervals, and as a result, guidelines were modified with participants advised to return every 3 years after adenomatous polyp detection. The recommended interval for non-advanced adenomas was gradually lengthened to the current standard, but there is no randomized, controlled data to support that interval. Furthermore, observational data of surveillance colonoscopy practice in the U.S. demonstrate that recommended intervals are often not adhered to, and individuals return for repeat testing well ahead of guideline recommendations (Schoen 2010, Lieberman 2014). Furthermore, if anything, retrospective, natural history studies of non-advanced adenomas do not support the association of non-advanced adenoma with a higher risk of subsequent colorectal cancer (Atkin 1992, Spencer 1984, Loberg 2014). For example, in a classic study from the United Kingdom, patients with small rectosigmoid adenomas, even if multiple, did not have an increased risk of CRC compared to the general population, over a 14-year mean follow-up time (Atkin 1992). In a recent observational study from Norway, participants with a low-risk adenoma followed over a median of 7.7 years (maximum 19 years) without subsequent surveillance colonoscopy, had a lower CRC mortality than the general population (Loberg 2014), implying that although the initial colonoscopy may be protective, subsequent follow-up colonoscopy was not required. More recently, several studies have reported that individuals with non-advanced adenomas do not have an increased risk of colorectal cancer compared to those with no adenomas (Click 2018, Lieberman 2019, Lee 2019). Another recent major development affecting screening is that practitioners of colonoscopy are now recommended to monitor and insure their adenoma detection rates are high. Data from Poland (Kaminski 2010) and Kaiser Permanente in California (Corley 2014) have demonstrated that a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) is associated with a lower long-term risk of interval CRC, or cancer occurring after colonoscopy. Our understanding of these observations is premised on the notion that leaving pre-neoplastic tissue (adenomas) in situ, (such as what occurs with a lower ADR), increases the chance that an adenoma left behind will subsequently transform into cancer. The concern over interval cancers has stimulated quality concerns about the practice of colonoscopy. Guidelines for a recommended ADR at screening colonoscopy are rising, from the initial targets of 15% in women and 25% in men (Lieberman 2012) to 20% in women and 30% in men or 25% overall. ADRs in clinical studies are now commonly over 30% and some practitioners report rates exceeding 50%. However, adenomas that are detected when the ADR is high or as it increases over time are generally small, non-advanced adenomas. Current clinical practice favoring colonoscopy-based screening with increased emphasis on detection of adenomas, most of which will turn out to be small, non-advanced adenomas, will greatly increase demand for utilization of surveillance colonoscopy exams in the coming decades. Yet, the evidence for determining the benefit, optimal timing, and recommended frequency of surveillance colonoscopy is unknown. A randomized, clinical trial to demonstrate the difference in yield between 5- or 10-year surveillance for participants with non-advanced adenoma is needed to guide clinical practice. Only a randomized trial will be authoritative enough to define good clinical practice and directly influence clinical care.

Veterans Affairs Seamless Phase II/III Randomized Trial of STAndard Systemic theRapy With or Without PET-directed Local Therapy for Oligometastatic pRosTate Cancer

Prostate Cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Veterans, comprising 30% of new cancer diagnoses in the VA. Eighty-five percent of men present with localized prostate cancer, which is typically treated with active surveillance or curative local therapy using surgery or radiation therapy. Unfortunately, twenty percent of Veterans undergoing curative local therapy will develop metastatic recurrence. These men typically receive palliative systemic hormonal therapy to control their disease. Despite this, over half of men will have cancer progression within 1-2 years and half will die within 5 years. Two diverging paradigms have been studied in recent years to improve the survival of men with recurrent metastatic prostate cancer. First, a subset of patients has oligometastatic disease. These patients are hypothesized to have an intermediate clinical state in which ablative local therapy with surgery or radiation to all metastatic sites of disease (metastasis-directed therapy; MDT) can lead to durable disease control and potentially cure in select patients. Recent Phase II randomized trials have demonstrated improved long-term progression-free survival with MDT in the absence of systemic therapy. Yet, 75% of patients receiving MDT for oligometastatic cancer develop progression in new areas, arguing that systemic therapy is needed to treat occult metastases. This is supported by data demonstrating that earlier palliative hormonal therapy is associated with improved survival. In fact, the second approach that has been studied in recent years, is whether escalating hormonal therapy by adding novel androgen receptor axis targeted agents or chemotherapy improves outcomes in men with metastatic prostate cancer. Multiple phase III randomized trials demonstrate that escalating hormonal therapy with these novel therapeutic agents improves progression-free survival and overall survival dramatically. Therefore, these agents have been integrated as an option into today's standard systemic therapy (SST) for metastatic prostate cancer. Given the promise of MDT to induce long-term cancer control and the effectiveness of SST to prevent further cancer progression, there is an urgent need to determine whether adding MDT to SST improves disease outcomes further. Additionally, prior studies have excluded patients with local recurrence. However, these comprise a large proportion of Veterans with recurrent oligometastatic prostate cancer. The primary goal of our study is to determine if adding PET-directed local therapy (MDT and treatment of primary tumor [de novo] or primary tumor local recurrence on PET/CT if applicable) improves disease control compared to SST alone in Veterans with oligometastatic prostate cancer. This is a multi-institutional phase II/III randomized trial comparing SST with or without PET-directed local therapy. Other goals of the study are to determine any differences in patterns of cancer progression, survival, and quality of life. We also will determine if certain mutations present in tumor DNA can predict if Veterans will benefit from PET-directed local therapy.

Pragmatic Evaluation of Events And Benefits of Lipid-lowering in Older Adults

PREVENTABLE will randomly assign atorvastatin 40 mg daily or matching placebo daily to approximately 20,000 community-dwelling adults 75 years of age or older without clinically evident cardiovascular disease, significant disability, or dementia, and follow them for up to 5 years (estimated median of 3.8 years). The study will enroll participants from approximately 100 US sites. Community engagement efforts will leverage community groups and practices as collaborators for recruitment. We plan to partner with participants, caregivers, and clinicians in all aspects of the study. The enrolling sites are non-VA and VA sites. To assist in recruitment, sites will apply a study-specific cohort identification algorithm to their electronic health record to create a list of eligible participants based on study inclusion and exclusion criteria. The cohort identification will exclude individuals with clinically evident cardiovascular disease, significant disability, or dementia and other exclusions obtainable from data queries to define a potential cohort. Additionally, the PREVENTABLE CCC will provide a centralized support team to assist with recruitment and retention efforts. This includes mass mailings and/or phone calls to potential participants and a toll-free number for potential participants to call for information and pre-screening. Interested and potentially eligible participants will be referred to an enrolling site near them, if applicable, otherwise, they will be referred to the PREVENTABLE Telesite which is capable of enrolling English and Spanish-speaking participants across the U.S. remotely. Sites will screen potential participants to confirm eligibility and consent and randomize those interested in joining the study. Specifically related to dementia, the qualifying exclusion is a clinical diagnosis in the chart or clinician's assessment that dementia may be present. Sites will enter contact information, mailing address for study drug, demographic information, height, weight, statin history (if any), Social Security Number, and aspects of the medical history not obtainable from EHR. In addition, a Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Activities of Daily Living (ADL) screen will be site-performed at baseline. SPPB will provide an objective assessment of function for understanding frailty and physical function of the enrolled population. Baseline lipid panel (core lab) and biospecimen samples will be obtained using the same blood draw for 20cc of blood. Blinded lipid testing will be performed at baseline on all participants (n=20,000) and repeated at 3 months in a random subset (n=2,000). Lipid panels will be sent to the PREVENTABLE Core Lab to maintain study blind. Future testing of lipid panels during routine clinical care will be actively discouraged, but other laboratory testing as indicated by clinical care is permitted. Sites will have the option for telehealth enrollment. Baseline SPPB and Biorepository Labs are not required, but encouraged. As part of the study operations, with the rationale of providing patient centricity, ease of participation, and access for vulnerable and at risk participants, follow up will be performed by a central call center. The baseline and annual assessments performed centrally will include a phone screen for cognitive function (TICS-M) and physical function (Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function [PROMIS-PF]). After year 1, if baseline calls indicated by crossing pre-specified cutpoints, in-person assessments will be completed by trained and certified research staff at a mutually agreed upon time and a standardized interview of a knowledgeable informant. Cardiovascular event ascertainment will be via a systematic approach to data curation from the EHR, Medicare, and National Death Index. For convenience and compliance, the study pharmacy will mail a supply of study drug, sufficient for 90 days, directly to participants. This will start immediately after randomization and continue as long as the participant is on study drug.

Two Studies for Patients With High Risk Prostate Cancer Testing Less Intense Treatment for Patients With a Low Gene Risk Score and Testing a More Intense Treatment for Patients With a High Gene Risk Score, The PREDICT-RT Trial

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To determine whether men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high risk prostate cancer who are in the lower 2/3 of Decipher genomic risk (=< 0.85) can be treated with 12 months androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus radiation therapy (RT) instead of 24 months ADT+RT and experience non-inferior metastasis-free survival. (De-intensification study) II. To determine whether men with NCCN high risk prostate cancer who are in the upper 1/3 of Decipher genomic risk (> 0.85) or have node-positive disease by conventional imaging (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] scan) will have a superior metastasis-free survival (MFS) through treatment intensification with apalutamide added to the standard of RT plus 24 month ADT. (Intensification study) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare overall survival (OS) between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) II. To compare time to prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure or start of salvage treatment between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) III. To compare PSA failure-free survival with non-castrate testosterone and no additional therapies between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) IV. To compare MFS judged based on either standard or molecular imaging between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) V. To compare prostate cancer-specific mortality between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) VI. To compare testosterone levels at the time of PSA failure and metastases between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) VII. To compare time to testosterone recovery (defined as a T > 200) between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) VIII. To compare adverse events, both clinician-reported using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version (v) 5.0 and patient-reported using Patient Reported Outcome (PRO)-CTCAE items, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare changes in cardio-metabolic markers, including body mass index, and waist circumference, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and either the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT) or intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (De-intensification and intensification studies) II. To develop a machine learning/artificial intelligence algorithm for radiotherapy quality assurance. (De-intensification and Intensification studies) III. To perform future translational correlative studies using biological and imaging data. (De-intensification and intensification studies) IV. Impact of position emission tomography (PET) use, measured by the proportion of times each type of imaging was used, in high-risk prostate cancer. (De-intensification and intensification studies) PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES OBJECTIVES: PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare sexual and hormonal function related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) II. To compare fatigue, as measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue instrument, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare depression, as measured by the PROMIS-depression, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) II. To compare depression, as measured by the PROMIS-depression, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. 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 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) II. To compare bowel and urinary function related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) III. To compare fatigue, as measured by the PROMIS-Fatigue instrument, between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the de-intensification arm (RT plus 12 months of ADT). (De-Intensification Study) IV. To compare sexual and hormonal function related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) V. To compare bowel and urinary function related quality of life, as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC), between the standard of care (RT plus 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) VI. 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 24 months of ADT) and the intensification arm (RT plus 24 months of ADT plus apalutamide). (Intensification Study) OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 4 arms. DE-INTENSIFICATION STUDY (DECIPHER SCORE =< 0.85): ARM I: Patients undergo radiation therapy (RT) over 2-11 weeks and receive ADT (consisting of either leuprolide, goserelin, triptorelin, degarelix, buserelin, histrelin, or relugolix and bicalutamide or flutamide) for 24 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients undergo RT over 2-11 weeks and receive ADT (consisting of either leuprolide, goserelin, triptorelin, degarelix, buserelin, histrelin, or relugolix and bicalutamide or flutamide) for 12 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. INTENSIFICATION STUDY (DECIPHER SCORE > 0.85 OR NODE POSITIVE): ARM III: Patients undergo RT over 2-11 weeks and receive ADT (consisting of either leuprolide, goserelin, triptorelin, degarelix, buserelin, histrelin, or relugolix and bicalutamide or flutamide) for 24 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM IV: Patients undergo RT over 2-11 weeks and receive ADT (consisting of either leuprolide, goserelin, triptorelin, degarelix, buserelin, histrelin, or relugolix) for 24 months in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also receive apalutamide orally (PO) once daily (QD). Treatment repeats every 90 days for up to 8 cycles (24 months) in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients undergo bone scan, positron emission tomography (PET) scan, computed tomography (CT) scan, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at screening and as clinically indicated and may optionally undergo blood sample collection throughout the study.

PTSD, AUD, and Interpersonal Conflict: Within-person Associations

Carboplatin or Olaparib for BRcA Deficient Prostate Cancer

Study General Trial Over-view This study is designed to help better understand treatment options compared to standard therapies for patients who have targeted DNA repair mutations and metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Cancer therapies are aimed at finding a way to kill the cancer cells while causing minimal damage to normal (non-cancer) cells. This often works because cancers cells grow faster than many normal cells, many treatments are aimed at to take advantage of that difference. One of the ways to do this is to damage the DNA of these more rapidly growing cells. However, if the cells have a way of repairing that damage then therapies may not work as well. Some research shows that when specific changes or mutations occur in the genes involved with repairing DNA damage, resulting cancers have responded well to drugs which damage DNA. Olaparib is known as a PARP inhibitor and is standard of care therapy for men with BRCA altered mCRPC. Carboplatin is a synthetic antineoplastic agent which has been used in the treatment of solid tumors and BRCA related cancers. When mutations occur in critical DNA-repair genes, research has found that treatment with carboplatin is also effective. This research is being done to determine the response of mCRPC in patients with DNA repair mutations to treatment with olaparib compared to carboplatin. This study will test whether giving one drug or the other a has a better response. Patients wishing to participate in this study are screened for safety and health eligibility before enrolling. This study is enrolling 100 male participants total, from across the VAMC nationally who have the following: - Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) - Cancer that has gotten worse, after any number of first-line treatments - Mutations in DNA-repair genes discovered as part of a patient's routine care. Once eligibility is determined, enrolled participants are randomized into one of two groups: - Group A will start with carboplatin (IV) first, given every 21 days, then have the option to switch to the second treatment with olaparib taken daily, (orally) with cycles of every 28 days. - Group B will start with olaparib first, taken (orally), with 28 day cycles, then have the option to switch to the second treatment with carboplatin (IV) every 21 days. Both study drugs in this trial are currently FDA approved, and are prescribed at the participating VAMC clinical sites per institutional guidelines. Carboplatin given in IV is also given as prescribed at the participating VAMC, and administered per institutional guidelines. Participants are monitored for health and body function, cancer progression, toxicity and life quality at every visit during the trial and at an end of treatment visit (28 days after completion of the trial or after withdrawal). For participants who respond well to treatment during the trial, additional treatment cycles may be added and the study can be extended. Participants who experience intolerable toxicity, cancer progression, or whose doctors decide to change treatment, will either be switched to the opposite study drug or withdrawn from the study. This important trial is designed to compare response rate and duration of response using carboplatin compared to olaparib in patients who have mCRPC which contains DNA repair gene mutations.

A Global Phase III Study of Rilvegostomig or Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-squamous NSCLC

This is a Phase III, two-arm, randomized, double-blind, global, multicenter study assessing the efficacy and safety of rilvegostomig compared to pembrolizumab, both in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, as a 1L treatment for patients with non-squamous mNSCLC whose tumors express PD-L1 (TC ≥ 1%).