Comparing Combinations of Drugs to Treat Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) When a Stem Cell Transplant is Not a Medically Suitable Treatment
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare progression-free survival (PFS) in frail or selected intermediate fit newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) participants treated with bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone at reduced dosing (VRd-Lite) induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance (Arm 1) versus daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance (Arm 2). II. To compare overall survival (OS) in frail or selected intermediate fit NDMM participants treated with VRd-Lite induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance (Arm 1) versus DRd induction followed by lenalidomide and daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj maintenance (Arm 3). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare PFS in Arm 1 versus Arm 3 II. To compare OS in Arm 1 versus Arm 2. III. To compare PFS in Arm 2 versus 3. IV. To compare the overall response rate (ORR) of Arm 1 against the ORR of Arm 2 and Arm 3. V. To compare the safety of Arm 1 with the safety of Arm 2 and Arm 3. VI. To explore veinous thrombo-embolism (VTE) incidence in participants receiving lenalidomide during induction across the three study arms. VII. To describe median time to response (complete response [CR] or better per International Myeloma Working Group [IMWG] criteria, very good partial response [VGPR] or better per IMWG criteria, partial response [PR] or better per IMWG criteria) on the three study arms. PRIMARY QUALITY OF LIFE (QOL) OBJECTIVE: I. To compare patient-reported global health status between treatment arms (Arm 1 versus the combination of Arms 2 and 3) at 9 months after randomization (end of induction therapy) using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). SECONDARY QOL OBJECTIVE: II. To compare longitudinal changes in global health status between treatment arms (Arm 1 versus the combination of Arms 2 and 3) from baseline to 9 months after randomization (end of induction therapy). PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES-COMMON TERMINOLOGY CRITERIA FOR ADVERSE EVENTS (PRO-CTCAE) OBJECTIVE: I. To compare selected patient-reported outcome symptoms using PRO-CTCAE items among the 3 study arms. ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES: I. To compare the rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) by clonoSEQ after 9 cycles of induction in Arm 1 versus Arm 2 and Arm 3, respectively. II. To compare the rate of MRD conversion after 1 year of maintenance in participants who were MRD positive after induction in Arm 1 versus Arm 2 and Arm 3, respectively. III. To compare the rate of sustained MRD negativity at time points of post-induction, post-1 year maintenance in Arm 1 versus Arm 2 and Arm 3, respectively. BANKING OBJECTIVES: I. To bank specimens for future correlative studies. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 3 arms. ARM I (VRd-Lite): INDUCTION CYCLES 1-9: Patients receive bortezomib subcutaneously (SC) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle, lenalidomide orally (PO) on days 1-21 of each cycle, and dexamethasone PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment repeats every 28 days for up to 9 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. MAINTENANCE CYCLES 10+: Patients receive lenalidomide PO on days 1-21 of each cycle. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II (DRd-R): INDUCTION CYCLES 1-9: Patients receive daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj SC on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-2, days 1 and 15 of cycles 3-6, and day 1 of cycles 7-9, lenalidomide PO on days 1-21 of each cycle, and dexamethasone PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment repeats every 28 days for up to 9 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. MAINTENANCE CYCLES 10+: Patients receive lenalidomide PO on days 1-21 of each cycle. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM III (DRd-DR): INDUCTION CYCLES 1-9: Patients receive daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj SC on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-2, days 1 and 15 of cycles 3-6, and day 1 of cycles 7-9, lenalidomide PO on days 1-21 of each cycle, and dexamethasone PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment repeats every 28 days for up to 9 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. MAINTENANCE CYCLES 10+: Patients receive daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj SC on day 1 of each cycle and lenalidomide PO on days 1-21 of each cycle. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 3 months for 1 year, every 6 months for 2 years, and then annually for up to 10 years.
Phase
3Span
340 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting
Intravesical BCG vs GEMDOCE in NMIBC
The primary objective of this study is to determine the event free survival (EFS) of BCG-naïve high grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients treated with intravesical BCG vs Gemcitabine + Docetaxel. Secondary objectives are as follows: to compare changes in cancer-specific and bladder cancer-specific QOL from baseline to treatment between BCG-naïve high grade NMIBC patients receiving BCG and GEMDOCE, to determine the cystectomy free survival (CFS) of BCG-naïve high grade NMIBC patients treated with intravesical BCG vs GEMDOCE, to determine the progression free survival (PFS) of BCG-naïve high grade NMIBC patients treated with intravesical BCG vs GEMDOCE, and to determine the safety and toxicity of BCG-naïve high grade NMIBC patients treated with intravesical BCG vs GEMDOCE
Phase
3Span
404 weeksSponsor
ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research GroupRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting
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.
Phase
2Span
512 weeksSponsor
Alliance for Clinical Trials in OncologyRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting
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.
Phase
N/ASpan
237 weeksSponsor
Alliance for Clinical Trials in OncologyRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting
Healthy Volunteers
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.
Phase
2/3Span
418 weeksSponsor
NRG OncologyRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting
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.
Phase
N/ASpan
2282 weeksSponsor
NRG OncologyRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting
De-Escalation of Breast Radiation Trial for Hormone Sensitive, HER-2 Negative, Oncotype Recurrence Score Less Than or Equal to 18 Breast Cancer (DEBRA)
Breast conservation therapy for early stage breast cancer has been an important achievement of oncology practice in the last half century and breast radiotherapy (RT) has been essential in its development. Several seminal randomized clinical trials conducted in the 1980's era demonstrated that breast radiotherapy following lumpectomy yielded overall survival outcomes equivalent to mastectomy for treatment of early stage invasive breast cancer leading to the National Institute of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference statement in 1991 supporting breast conservation treatment.This established lumpectomy with RT as an alternative to mastectomy and subsequently the rate of breast conservation for eligible breast cancer patients rose steadily. Shortly thereafter, investigators recognized that the toxicity, patient burden, and geographic barriers associated with the protracted treatment course for breast RT was a potential barrier to breast conservation utilization. Numerous phase III clinical trials were conducted randomizing women post lumpectomy to RT vs. observation aimed at identifying which cases did not derive a significant RT benefit. No such subsets of breast cancer patients were consistently identified, thereby solidifying the standard that breast conservation required both lumpectomy and RT. Two meta-analyses by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) in 2005 and 2011 further reinforced the value of breast RT post lumpectomy by examining the relationship of local recurrence and breast cancer mortality relative to the use of breast RT post lumpectomy. In each analysis, it found for axillary node negative breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation a small but consistent increase in breast cancer mortality when breast radiotherapy was omitted. As a result, breast RT after lumpectomy has become an established paradigm for breast conservation for early stage breast cancer and is recommended by the NCCN 2018 guidelines (as it has for nearly two decades) that are commonly used today by clinicians and health systems alike. The landscape of early stage breast cancer has changed dramatically over the past three decades since the establishment of breast conservation. Widespread screening with mammography has led to the diagnosis of smaller and earlier stage disease. All breast cancers are now routinely characterized by their hormone sensitivity based on the presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors on tumor cells within the biopsy or surgical specimen and presence of HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) which has provided an additional means of stratifying breast cancer into distinct prognostic groups. Small, node negative invasive breast cancer that is hormone sensitive (HS) and HER2-negative has a lower overall recurrence rate (local, regional, and distant) than breast cancers characterized by more adverse clinical pathologic features. However, other than in a smaller subset of women greater than 70 years old, clinical trials in this HS population still demonstrated unacceptable local recurrence risks long term after lumpectomy alone emphasizing that clinical and pathologic features are insufficient for consistently identifying when RT can safely be omitted.
Phase
3Span
1052 weeksSponsor
NRG OncologyRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting
S1501 Carvedilol in Preventing Cardiac Toxicity in Patients With Metastatic HER-2-Positive Breast Cancer
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess whether prophylactic beta blocker therapy with carvedilol compared with no intervention reduces the risk of subsequent cardiac dysfunction in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving trastuzumab?based HER-2 targeted therapy. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess whether prophylactic beta blocker therapy with carvedilol compared with no intervention reduces the risk of predefined subsequent cardiac events in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving trastuzumab?based HER-2 targeted therapy. II. To evaluate if prophylactic carvedilol compared with no intervention results in a longer time to first interruption of trastuzumab?based HER-2 targeted therapy due to either cardiac dysfunction or events. III. To assess whether prophylactic beta blocker therapy with carvedilol compared with no intervention reduces the risk of subsequent cardiac dysfunction OR events in this population. IV. To establish and prospectively collect a predefined panel of baseline core cardiovascular measures and develop a predictive model of cardiac dysfunction. V. To evaluate the rate of cardiac dysfunction in an observational arm consisting of individuals otherwise eligible for the study except for use of beta blockers, angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for other medical reasons. TERTIARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate the isoleucine (lle) 655 valine (Val) and and alanine (Ala)ll70 proline (Pro) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the HER-2 gene as a predictive biomarker of study-defined cardiac dysfunction. II. To evaluate plasma neuregulin-1 at baseline and over study time as a predictive biomarker of study-defined cardiac dysfunction. III. To evaluate the feasibility of performing serial left ventricular strain in a National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) group setting, with the goal of 75% of patients contributing both a baseline and at least one follow-up strain measurement. IV. To bank blood for future translational medicine studies such as brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), additional SNPs, and high sensitivity troponin. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. Patients taking beta blocker, ARB, or ACE inhibitor at registration are assigned to Arm III. ARM I: Patients not taking beta blocker, ARB, or ACE inhibitor at registration receive carvedilol orally (PO) twice daily (BID). Courses repeat every 12 weeks for 108 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. ARM II: Patients not taking beta blocker, ARB, or ACE inhibitor at registration receive no study intervention for up to 108 weeks. ARM III: Patients undergo observation for up to 108 weeks. After completion of study, patients are followed up for up to 108 weeks.
Phase
3Span
635 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting
Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without Definitive Treatment in Treating Participants With Metastatic Prostate Cancer
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare overall survival in metastatic prostate cancer patients who are randomized to standard systemic therapy (SST) plus definitive treatment of the primary tumor versus standard systemic therapy alone. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare overall survival in metastatic prostate cancer patients who received SST plus surgical excision of the primary tumor versus SST alone in the subset who specify the surgical intent stratification factor. II. To compare the rate of symptomatic local progression between the treatment arms. III. To compare progression-free survival (PFS) between the two treatment arms. IV. To compare rates of progression-free survival between arms for the subsets of patients with and without metastasis directed therapy (MDT) to oligometastatic sites. QUALITY OF LIFE OBJECTIVES: I. To compare between arms patient-reported urinary function and urinary bother over time (after initiation of SST at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years) using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and patient-reported pain and physical functioning using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) between patients receiving standard systemic therapy and those receiving systemic therapy and definitive management of the primary prostate cancer. OTHER OBJECTIVES: I. To bank tissue and whole blood specimens for future use. OUTLINE: INDUCTION: Participants receive 1 of 6 acceptable forms of SST for 22-28 weeks. I. Participants undergo a bilateral orchiectomy. II. Participants receive goserelin acetate subcutaneously (SC) every 28 days or 12 weeks, histrelin acetate SC every 12 months, leuprolide acetate SC or intramuscularly (IM) every 1, 3, 4, or 6 months, and triptorelin every 1, 3, or 6 months. III. Participants receive goserelin acetate SC every 28 days or 12 weeks, histrelin acetate SC every 12 months, leuprolide acetate SC or IM every 1, 3, 4, or 6 months, and triptorelin every 1, 3, or 6 months. Participants also receive nilutamide orally (PO) daily, flutamide PO every 8 hours, and bicalutamide PO daily. IV. Participants receive degarelix via injection for 2 doses and then every 28 days. V. Participants receive nilutamide PO daily, flutamide PO every 8 hours, and bicalutamide PO daily. Participants also receive docetaxel over 1 hour every 3 weeks with or without prednisone PO every 12 hours. VI. Participants receive nilutamide PO daily, flutamide PO every 8 hours, and bicalutamide PO daily. Participants also receive abiraterone PO daily or prednisone PO every 12 hours. After completion of 22-28 weeks of SST, participants are then randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Participants receive 1 acceptable form of SST as in Induction except for treatment with docetaxel and prednisone. ARM II: Participants receive 1 acceptable form of SST as in Induction except for treatment with docetaxel and prednisone. Participants undergo prostatectomy within 8 weeks after randomization or radiation therapy within 4 weeks of randomization. After completion of study treatment, participants are followed up for 8 years.
Phase
3Span
680 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting
S1703 Serum Tumor Marker Directed Disease Monitoring in Patients With Hormone Receptor Positive Her2 Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess whether patients with HER-2 negative, hormone receptor positive, metastatic breast cancer who are monitored with serum tumor marker directed disease monitoring (STMDDM) have non-inferior overall survival compared to patients monitored with usual care. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare cumulative direct healthcare costs through 48 weeks among patients monitored with STMDDM versus those monitored with usual care in this patient population. II. To assess whether the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of anxiety and quality of life (QOL) are different among patients who are monitored with STMDDM compared with patients who are monitored with usual care in this patient population. TERTIARY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess modality and frequency of disease monitoring testing in the usual care cohort. II. To assess the association of PROs and patient preferences for disease monitoring testing. III. To evaluate predictors of physician preferences for disease monitoring testing. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized into 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients undergo imaging studies at a minimum frequency of every 12 weeks and continue with usual care disease monitoring for up to 312 weeks in the absence of disease progression. ARM II: Patients undergo disease specific serum tumor marker (STM) evaluation every 4-8 weeks. Patients with elevated STM, undergo imaging evaluation. Patients continue with STMDDM for up to 312 weeks in the absence of disease progression.
Phase
N/ASpan
950 weeksSponsor
SWOG Cancer Research NetworkRichmond, Indiana
Recruiting