Downy, California

Study of Sacituzumab Govitecan-hziy and Pembrolizumab Versus Treatment of Physician's Choice in Patients With Triple Negative Breast Cancer Who Have Residual Invasive Disease After Surgery and Neoadjuvant Therapy (ASCENT-05/AFT-65 OptimICE-RD/NSABP B-63)

Safety, PK and Efficacy of ONC-392 in Monotherapy and in Combination of Anti-PD-1 in Advanced Solid Tumors and NSCLC

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), also known as CD152 (cluster of differentiation 152), is a cell surface protein receptor that interacts with B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86) to ensure proper function of regulatory T cells and protect host against autoinflammatory diseases. Anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have demonstrated strong and broad cancer immunotherapeutic effects (CITE) in a variety of preclinical models and are used clinically both as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy with Nivolumab (anti-PD-1). However, CTLA-4 monotherapy has more immunotherapy-related adverse effects (irAEs) than anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. In addition, the rate of severe irAE (Grades 3 and 4) reached 55% in melanoma patients receiving combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab. The strong irAEs further limit the doses tolerated by cancer patients. Nevertheless, combination with anti-PD-1 resulted in significantly improved response rates and patient survival in multiple types of cancer. Furthermore, anti-CTLA-4 antibodies induce long-lasting immunity in cancer patients. Therefore, CTLA-4 remains an important immunotherapy target, but major challenges remain in improving both safety and efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 mAbs. ONC-392 is a highly selective, humanized monoclonal IgG1-kappa isotype antibody against CTLA-4. The parental clone was identified through in vivo screening in humanized CTLA-4 mouse model for high anti-tumor efficacy and low autoimmune toxicity. We have recently demonstrated that ONC-392 is dissociation from CTLA-4 under low pH to allow its escape from lysosomal degradation and recycle to cell surface. We have provided several lines of evidence for the notion that a pH-sensitive antibody ONC-392 is not only safer but also more effective in Treg depletion and tumor rejection than the Ipilimumab, which is pH-insensitive. First, by preserving CTLA-4 on the cell surface, Onc-392 leaves higher ligand density for better ADCC. Second, Onc-392 is more efficient in Treg depletion in tumor microenvironment. Third, Onc-392 is significantly more potent in inducing rejection of large tumors. The study consists of four parts: (1) The Part A study is a dose-finding rapid titration, Phase I trial of ONC-392 as a single agent in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors with various histology. The aim of this trial is to define the recommended Phase II dose for ONC-392 monotherapy (RP2D-M). (2) The Part B study is a dose-finding phase with ONC-392 in combination with a standard dose of 200 mg pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. (3) The Part C consists of different expansion arms. 1. Arm A: Pancreatic Cancer Cohort, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who have progressive disease after first and second lines of systemic treatment. 2. Arm B: TNBC Cohort, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic TNBC patients who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. 3. Arm C: NSCLC Mono Cohort 1, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic NSCLC patients with EGFR or ALK mutations who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including targeted therapy or checkpoint inhibitors. 4. Arm D: NSCLC IO Naïve Cohort, ONC-392/Pembrolizumab combination therapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic NSCLC cancer patients who are treatment naïve, or anti PD (L)1 immunotherapy naïve and PD-L1-positive (PD L1 TPS ≥ 1%). 5. Arm E: NSCLC IO R/R Cohort, ONC-392/Pembrolizumab combination therapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic NSCLC cancer patients who are R/R to prior anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status. 6. Arm F: Melanoma IO Naïve Cohort, ONC-392/Pembrolizumab combination therapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic Melanoma patients who are treatment naïve, or checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy naive. Prior systemic chemotherapy or targeted therapy are allowed. 7. Arm G: Melanoma IO R/R Cohort, ONC-392/Pembrolizumab combination therapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic melanoma patients who are R/R to anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. 8. Arm I: NSCLC Mono Cohort 2, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic NSCLC patients without EGFR or ALK mutations who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including chemotherapy or checkpoint inhibitors. Patient must have anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, either alone or in combination, as last treatment before enrollment. Prior anti-CTLA-4 treatment is allowed. 9. Arm J: Melanoma Mono Cohort, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic melanoma patients who are R/R to anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. 10. Arm K: Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC), ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic HNSCC patients with or without positive HPV who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including chemotherapy or checkpoint inhibitors. Patient must have anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, either alone or in combination, as last treatment before enrollment. 11. Arm L: Ovarian Cancer, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll patients with advanced/metastatic ovarian cancer who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy or checkpoint inhibitors. 12. Arm M: Solid Tumors, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors who are not eligible for Arm A-C or H-L, who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy or checkpoint inhibitors. 13. Arm N: Renal Cell Carcinoma, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic RCC patients who are R/R to anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. (4) Part D is a Phase II study in recurrent and/or metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma with ONC-392 monotherapy. (5) Part E Arm O will test ONC-392 in combination with docetaxel in PD-1 resistant NSCLC.

A Comparison of TULSA Procedure vs. Radical Prostatectomy in Participants With Localized Prostate Cancer

The typical standard of care for patients with localized, intermediate risk prostate cancer is radical prostatectomy, which involves the surgical removal of the prostate. Although radical prostatectomy is effective in terms of controlling the cancer, it may leave men with significant long-term effects in urinary, sexual function like erectile dysfunction and/or incontinence (loss of bladder control), thus reducing quality of life. Preservation of continence (ability to control your bladder) and potency (ability to achieve erection and/or ejaculation) may be significant concerns for men. Targeted ablation of localized prostate cancer using MRI-guided technology is becoming a favorable option for many men who wish to have their cancer treated but do not wish to compromise their urinary and sexual functions. The TULSA Procedure is a new, minimally-invasive technique that uses real-time MRI-guided technology to guide the delivery of high-energy ultrasound to precisely, and in a customized fashion specific to you, heat and kill the prostate cancer tissue while protecting important surrounding body parts that are important for preserving urinary and sexual function. Minimally invasive here means that the procedure is performed through natural openings in your body (the urethra) instead of creating larger openings like traditional surgery or minimally invasive surgery. The purpose of this research study is to: - Test whether the TULSA Study Procedure preserves or improves your quality of life (urinary, bowel and sexual functions) at 12 months post-study treatment compared to standard of care (radical prostatectomy). - Test how many subjects who undergo the TULSA Study Procedure are free from treatment failure by 3 years post-study treatment compared to subjects who undergo the standard of care (radical prostatectomy). Treatment failure is defined as undergoing other additional prostate cancer treatments, spreading of cancer or death caused by cancer. About 201 subjects will participate in this study with 67 randomly assigned to the radical prostatectomy group and 134 randomly assigned to the TULSA procedure group. Patients will have a 1 in 3 chance of being assigned to the radical prostatectomy group and a 2 in 3 chance of being assigned to the TULSA group. Following treatment, patients will be followed up for 10 years.

First-in-human Study of DB-1305/BNT325 for Advanced/Metastatic Solid Tumors

This is a multicenter, open-label, multiple-dose, first in human (FIH) study. The study consists of two parts: Part 1 adopts an accelerated titration at first dose level followed with classic "3+3" design to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D); Part 2 is a dose expansion phase to confirm the safety, tolerability and explore efficacy in selected malignant solid tumors at the MTD/the RP2D. This study will enroll subjects with advanced/unresectable, recurrent, or metastatic malignant solid tumors.

A Study of Rituximab-Gemcitabine-Dexamethasone-Platinum (R-GDP) with or Without Selinexor in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma

Product Surveillance Registry

Prospective Research Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: An Observational Evaluation (PREAMBLE)

Choosing Wisely: De-implementing Fall Prevention Alarms in Hospitals

Inpatient falls result in significant physical and economic burdens to patients (increased injury and mortality rates and decreased quality of life) as well as to medical organizations (increased lengths of stay, medical care costs, and litigation). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) considers falls with injury a "never event"- an error in medical care that indicates a real problem in the safety and credibility of a health care institution. Hospitals are no longer reimbursed for extra costs incurred in the diagnosis and management of inpatient fall-related injuries. Thus, because patient falls are common, costly and interpreted as poor care quality, hospitals are highly incentivized to prevent them. Alarm systems are designed to reduce falls by alerting staff when patients attempt to leave a bed or chair without assistance. There is now strong evidence that alarms are ineffective as a fall prevention maneuver in hospitals. Despite this, more than one-third of hospital patients are undergoing fall prevention alarm monitoring. In nursing homes, CMS regulates the use of fall prevention alarms as it does physical restraints. Instructions to nursing home surveyors state these devices should be used only when medically necessary and continuously reevaluated. Guided by the Choosing Wisely De-implementation Framework, this project will generate a generalizable approach using coaching and tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce use of fall prevention alarms in hospitals. The investigators will conduct a hybrid II implementation study in 30 medical or medical-surgical units from US non-federal hospitals participating in the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators. Findings from this study could also support future trials aimed at de-implementing low-quality alarm use in other care settings with known high fall rates (e.g., stroke care, cancer care). Evaluation of high versus low intensity coaching addresses an urgent need to evaluate use of tailored strategies and to establish effective thresholds for coaching within health service settings that have varying resources to support de-implementation efforts

MILD® Percutaneous Image-Guided Lumbar Decompression: A Medicare Claims Study

In this study the treatment group will include all patients receiving MILD, and the control group will include all patients receiving IPD for the treatment of LSS during the enrollment period. Reoperation and harms data will be studied for the MILD and IPD procedures for a 24-month follow-up period after the index procedure using Medicare claims data. This study is exempt from IRB oversight (Department of Health and Human Services regulations 45 CFR 46) and does not require prior enrollment nor patient consent. The inclusion of the study's NCT number on MILD Medicare claims is required and results in enrollment.

A Post-Market Study for Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of the NTX100 for RLS

This study will assess the NTX100 TOMAC System's long-term effectiveness and safety in real-world settings. Using a prospective, observational approach, we'll monitor individuals receiving the system as part of standard care through five study visits, collecting data on clinical outcomes, device performance, and adverse events.