Greencastle, Indiana

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)

Testing the Addition of an Anti-Cancer Drug, Irinotecan, to the Standard Chemotherapy Treatment (FOLFOX) After Long-Course Radiation Therapy for Advanced-Stage Rectal Cancers to Improve the Rate of Complete Response and Long-Term Rates of Organ Preservation

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To evaluate and compare the clinical complete response (cCR) rates in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant long-course neoadjuvant radiotherapy (LCRT) followed by neoadjuvant modified fluorouracil, irinotecan, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) versus neoadjuvant LCRT followed by neoadjuvant modified leucovorin , fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate and compare organ-preservation-time (OPT) between two treatment arms. II. To evaluate and compare the disease-free survival (DFS) time between the two treatment arms. III. To evaluate and compare time to distant metastasis between two treatment arms. IV. To evaluate and compare overall survival (OS) between two treatment arms. V. To evaluate and compare toxicity profiles of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) between two treatment arms. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVE: I. Evaluation of circulating tumor deoxyribonucleic acid (ctDNA) kinetics during neoadjuvant therapy & surveillance and to correlate with radiographic, pathologic, and clinical outcomes. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. GROUP I: Patients receive long-course chemoradiation therapy on study and then receive either: FOLFOX regimen consisting of leucovorin intravenously (IV), fluorouracil IV, and oxaliplatin IV or CAPOX consisting of capecitabine orally (PO), and oxaliplatin IV on study. Patients undergo computed tomography (CT) scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and biospecimen collection throughout the trial. Patients also undergo sigmoidoscopy throughout the trial and biopsy during screening. GROUP II: Patients receive long-course chemoradiation therapy on study and then receive FOLFIRINOX regimen consisting of leucovorin IV, fluorouracil IV, irinotecan IV, and oxaliplatin IV on study. Patients undergo CT scan, MRI scan, and blood specimen collection throughout the trial. Patients undergo sigmoidoscopy throughout the trial and biopsy during screening.

Testing the Addition of High Dose, Targeted Radiation to the Usual Treatment for Locally-Advanced Inoperable Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare the overall survival in patients with stage II-IIIC inoperable node-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after image guided, motion-managed conventional radiotherapy to the primary tumor and nodal metastases (Arm 1) or after image guided, motion-managed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the primary tumor followed by conventionally fractionated radiotherapy to nodal metastases (Arm 2) both given with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy. II. To compare progression-free survival between the experimental arm (Arm 2) and control arm (Arm 1). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare objective response rate (as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version [v] 1.1) between the experimental arm and control arm. II. To compare the rate of local control between the experimental arm and control arm. III. To compare patterns of failure (primary, locoregional, or distant) between the experimental arm and control arm. IV. To compare changes in pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide [DLCO] assessed at randomization and at 6- and 12- months following completion of radiation therapy) between the experimental arm and control arm. V. To compare changes in quality of life and patient-reported outcomes assessed from pre-treatment to 3 months following radiation therapy of each treatment arm. VI. To determine acute and late toxicity profiles of each treatment arm as measured by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To characterize and compare longitudinal quality of life and patient-reported outcomes of each treatment arm. II. To collect biospecimens at baseline, after SBRT (for Arm 2 patients), during last 2 weeks of chemoradiation, and after first dose of consolidation therapy, to allow for future analyses. III. To collect 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT) planning scans and radiation dose to calculate regional lung ventilation and explore pre-treatment 4D-CT based ventilation to predict pulmonary toxicity. IV. To characterize clinical outcomes, toxicities and changes in pulmonary function and quality of life among patients receiving proton and photon radiotherapy. V. To develop and characterize a machine learning/artificial intelligence algorithm for radiotherapy planning and/or quality assurance. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients undergo conventional IGRT and receive usual care chemotherapy consisting of paclitaxel intravenously (IV) followed by carboplatin IV weekly (Q7D) during radiotherapy or pemetrexed IV followed by carboplatin IV every 21 days during radiotherapy or etoposide IV on days 1 to 5 and days 29 to 33 followed by cisplatin IV on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 or pemetrexed IV followed by cisplatin IV every 21 days during radiotherapy. Patients then receive consolidation durvalumab IV every 2 or 4 weeks for up to one year in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also undergo CT and/or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT during follow-up. ARM II: Patients undergo SBRT and conventional IGRT and receive standard-of-care chemotherapy consisting of paclitaxel IV followed by carboplatin IV Q7D during radiotherapy or pemetrexed IV followed by carboplatin IV every 21 days during radiotherapy or etoposide IV on days 1 to 5 and days 29 to 33 followed by cisplatin IV on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 or pemetrexed IV followed by cisplatin IV every 21 days during radiotherapy. Patients then receive consolidation durvalumab IV every 2 or 4 weeks for up to one year in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also undergo CT and/or PET/CT during follow-up. Patients are followed up every 3 months for 1 year, every 6 months during years 2 and 3, and then yearly after that for the duration of the study.

Collecting Blood Samples From Patients With and Without Cancer to Evaluate Tests for Early Cancer Detection

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To provide a blinded reference set of cancer versus (vs.) non-cancer blood samples that will be used to validate assays for inclusion in a prospective clinical trial focused on utility of blood-based multi-cancer early detection. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. Evaluate test performance at the time of initial cancer diagnosis by tumor type. II. Evaluate test performance at the time of initial cancer diagnosis by clinical stage. OUTLINE: Participants complete a questionnaire at baseline. Participants undergo collection of blood samples at registration and at 12 months after registration. Patients with a cancer diagnosis may undergo collection of tissue samples at registration and 12 months after registration. After completion of study, participants are followed up at 1 year.

Testing the Addition of Stereotactic Radiation Therapy With Immune Therapy for the Treatment of Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer, SAMURAI Study

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To determine whether the addition of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to the primary tumor in combination with immunotherapy improves outcomes compared to immunotherapy alone in patients with metastatic, unresected, renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The primary endpoint is nephrectomy and radiographic progression-free survival (nrPFS) with progression determined as per iRECIST criteria. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess the safety, toxicity and tolerability of the two treatment strategies as defined by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5 in each treatment arm. II. To assess the objective response rate (ORR) by Immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST) in each treatment arm. III. Nephrectomy and radiographic progression-free survival excluding nephrectomies that were performed for non-protocol specified indications (nephrectomy and radiographic progression-free survival [nrPFS]2). IV. Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). V. To assess overall survival (OS) in each treatment arm. VI. To assess the time to subsequent second-line therapy or death in each treatment arm. VII. To assess the rate of cytoreductive nephrectomy in each treatment arm. VIII. To assess treatment-free survival in patients who discontinue therapy for reason other than radiographic disease progression. IX. To assess the ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and iRECIST in the primary renal mass. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess composite nrPFS in the predefined histological subgroups below: Ia. Clear cell versus non-clear cell histology. Ib. International Metastatic RCC database consortium (IMDC) intermediate versus poor risk group. Ic. Systemic treatment with immunotherapy-immunotherapy combination versus immunotherapy-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy combination. Id. Sarcomatoid versus non sarcomatoid variant. II. To identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers of response to SABR in the context of immunotherapy based treatment via assessment of tissue and blood based biomarkers. III. To evaluate the abscopal effect of SABR with systemic therapy. IIIa. Compare ORR in non-irradiated target lesions in the control arm patients undergoing immunotherapy alone to the experimental arm undergoing SABR + immunotherapy. IV. To evaluate the impact of treatment on level of inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombus. V. To compare accruing center identified iRECIST progression and centrally identified iRECIST progression events on computed tomography (CT). OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive one of the following immunotherapy regimens per physician discretion: nivolumab intravenously (IV) over 30 minutes and ipilimumab IV over 30 minutes every 3 weeks for 4 doses followed by nivolumab IV over 30 minutes every 2 or 4 weeks; pembrolizumab IV over 30 minutes every 3 or 6 weeks and axitinib orally (PO) twice daily (BID); avelumab IV over 60 minutes every 2 weeks and axitinib PO BID; nivolumab IV over 30 minutes every 2 or 4 weeks and cabozantinib PO once daily (QD); OR pembrolizumab IV over 30 minutes every 3 or 6 weeks and lenvatinib PO QD. Treatment with immunotherapy continues in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients undergo SABR on 3 different days over 1-3 weeks and receive immunotherapy as in Arm I. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 6 months for 5 years, and then annually for 3 years.

CORRECT Study of Minimal Residual Disease Detection in Colorectal Cancer

Myriad™ Augmented Soft Tissue Reconstruction Registry

This is an observational, multi-center, single arm, Phase IV study, designed to evaluate the safety and clinical outcomes of Matrix and Morcells in soft tissue reconstruction procedures. The study is a registry study and will enroll participants who are undergoing a surgical procedure, and where the attending physician will use Myriad Matrix™ and/or Morcells™ as part of the surgical intervention. Participants enrolled in the study will be undergoing a range of surgical procedures involving the reconstruction of soft tissues, including but not limited to: - Abdominal dehiscence - Necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI) - Lower extremity complex non-healing wounds (limb salvage) - Pilonidal sinus disease - Anal fistula - Hidradenitis suppurativa reconstruction - Pressure injury reconstruction Other procedure types may be included at the discretion of the Investigator/Research Team. Participants that are being enrolled in the study would otherwise be undergoing their surgical procedure with either of the Myriad™ devices as part of Standard of Care (SoC). The pre-operative care and preparation of the surgical site (prior to the application of Myriad™ devices) shall be undertaken at the discretion of the attending physician and per their institutional protocols and procedures. Surgical technique for the participants reconstruction is at the discretion of the attending physician. Use of Myriad Matrix™ or Morcells as part of the surgery shall be per the products Instructions for Use. Myriad Matrix™ devices may be implanted or used for dermal regeneration as part of the participants surgical procedure. Myriad Morcells™ may be used for dermal regeneration and in combination with the Myriad Matrix™ devices. The participants post-operative care is at the discretion of the attending physician. Early and late-stage healing outcomes will be assessed as part of the study and as part of standard of care. Through the course of treatment and following up care de-identified patient data (quantitative qualitative assessment measures and digital images) will be captured and from the basis of the registry dataset.

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.

Colon Adjuvant Chemotherapy Based on Evaluation of Residual Disease

Currently, there are no biomarkers validated prospectively in randomized studies for resected colon cancer to determine need for adjuvant chemotherapy. However, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) shed into the bloodstream represents a highly specific and sensitive approach (especially with serial monitoring) for identifying microscopic or residual tumor cells in colon cancer patients and may outperform traditional clinical and pathological features in prognosticating risk for recurrence. Colon cancer patients who do not have detectable ctDNA (ctDNA-) are at a much lower risk of recurrence and may not need adjuvant chemotherapy. Furthermore, for colon cancer pts with detectable ctDNA (ctDNA+) who are at a very high risk of recurrence, the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimen has not been established. We hypothesize that for pts whose colon cancer has been resected, ctDNA status may be used to risk stratify for making decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy.