Dataset Information

Maintenance Therapy with Aromatase Inhibitor in epithelial Ovarian Cancer (MATAO): study protocol of a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled multi-center phase III Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A high percentage of epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC) express the estrogen receptor (ER), which is an ideal target for endocrine therapy. Letrozole is a proven, potent aromatase inhibitor, extensively tested and used in the treatment of ER positive breast cancer. In addition, it seems a potent drug for patients with heavily pre-treated OC as demonstrated in several distinctive settings. However, it has never been evaluated prospectively in a maintenance setting for ovarian cancer after standard of care. The here proposed trial aims to define a population of EOC patients, who would benefit from the effectiveness of the generic agent letrozole, with little expected toxicity and thus beneficial impact on overall quality of life (QoL).

Methods

In this international multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial at clinical centers in Switzerland, Germany and Austria, we plan to include 540 patients with primary, newly diagnosed FIGO Stage II to IV and histologically confirmed low- or high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancer. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: receiving blinded study treatment (letrozole or placebo tablets). When assuming a HR of 0.7, a median PFS of 18 months in the control arm and a median PFS of 25.7 months in the treatment arm, a two-sided alpha level of 5%, 3.5 years recruitment and 1.5 years observation time, we expect 330 events to have occurred within these 5 years in the total cohort yielding a power of 90%. Follow-up data for the whole cohort will be collected for up to 10 years and for the low-grade cancer for up to 12 years.

Discussion

The here proposed randomized phase III trial aims to identify patients with EOC in the maintenance setting, who benefit from the effectiveness of the letrozole, by proving its efficacy whilst maintaining a high standard of QoL due to the limited toxicity expected in comparison to the current alternative drugs on the market for this treatment phase.

Trial registration

This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov under the identifier NCT04111978 . Registered 02 October 2019.

SUBMITTER: McLaughlin PMJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9074273 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Riluzole is a sodium-glutamate antagonist that attenuates neurodegeneration in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). It has shown favorable results in promoting recovery in pre-clinical models of traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) and in early phase clinical trials. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of riluzole in acute cervical tSCI. An international, multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, adaptive, Phase III trial (NCT01597518) was undertaken. Patients with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A-C, cervical (C4-C8) tSCI, and <12 h from injury were randomized to receive either riluzole, at an oral dose of 100 mg twice per day (BID) for the first 24 h followed by 50 mg BID for the following 13 days, or placebo. The primary efficacy end-point was change in Upper Extremity Motor (UEM) scores at 180 days. The primary efficacy analyses were conducted on an intention to treat (ITT) and completed cases (CC) basis. The study was powered at a planned enrolment of 351 patients. The trial began in October 2013 and was halted by the sponsor on May 2020 (and terminated in April 2021) in the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic. One hundred ninety-three patients (54.9% of the pre-planned enrolment) were randomized with a follow-up rate of 82.7% at 180 days. At 180 days, in the CC population the riluzole-treated patients compared with placebo had a mean gain of 1.76 UEM scores (95% confidence interval: -2.54-6.06) and 2.86 total motor scores (CI: -6.79-12.52). No drug-related serious adverse events were associated with the use of riluzole. Additional pre-planned sensitivity analyses revealed that in the AIS C population, riluzole was associated with significant improvement in total motor scores (estimate: standard error [SE] 8.0; CI 1.5-14.4) and upper extremity motor scores (SE 13.8; CI 3.1-24.5) at 6 months. AIS B patients had higher reported independence, measured by the Spinal Cord Independence Measure score (45.3 vs. 27.3; d: 18.0 CI: -1.7-38.0) and change in mental health scores, measured by the Short Form 36 mental health domain (2.01 vs. -11.58; d: 13.2 CI: 1.2-24.8) at 180 days. AIS A patients who received riluzole had a higher average gain in neurological levels at 6 months compared with placebo (mean 0.50 levels gained vs. 0.12 in placebo; d: 0.38, CI: -0.2-0.9). The primary analysis did not achieve the predetermined end-point of efficacy for riluzole, likely related to insufficient power. However, on pre-planned secondary analyses, all subgroups of cervical SCI subjects (AIS grades A, B and C) treated with riluzole showed significant gains in functional recovery. The results of this trial may warrant further investigation to extend these findings. Moreover, guideline development groups may wish to assess the possible clinical relevance of the secondary outcome analyses, in light of the fact that SCI is an uncommon orphan disorder without an accepted neuroprotective treatment.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were limited. Anlotinib is a novel multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor. ALTER0703 study was conducted to assess efficacy and safety of anlotinib for patients with refractory mCRC.Materials and methodsThis was a multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial involving 33 hospitals in China. Patients had taken at least two lines of therapies were 2:1 randomized to receive oral anlotinib (12 mg/day; days 1-14; 21 days per cycle) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Randomization was stratified by previous VEGF-targeting treatments and time from diagnosis to metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), quality of life (QoL), and safety.ResultsA total of 419 patients (anlotinib: 282; placebo: 137) were treated from December 2014 to August 2016. The median PFS was improved in anlotinib group (4.1 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-4.5) over placebo group (1.5 months; 95% CI, 1.4-1.5), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.27-0.43; p < .0001). However, median OS was similar between two groups (8.6 months; 95% CI, 7.8-9.7 vs. 7.2 months; 95% CI, 6.2-8.8; HR, 1.02; p = .870). Improvements of ORR and DCR were observed in anlotinib over placebo. The most common grade ≥ 3 anlotinib related adverse events were hypertension (20.92%), increased γ-GT (7.09%), and hand-foot skin reaction (6.38%).ConclusionAnlotinib was tolerated in Chinese patients with refractory mCRC. Although OS did not reach significant difference, anlotinib still provided clinical benefits by substantially prolonged PFS in these patients.Implications for practiceIn this randomized clinical trial that included 419 patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, substantial prolonged in progression-free survival was noted in patients who received anlotinib compared with those given placebo. Improvements on objective response rate and disease control rate was also observed in anlotinib group. However, overall survival was similar between the two groups. In a word, in third-line or above treatment of Chinese patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, anlotinib provided clinical benefit by significantly prolonged progression-free survival.

Project description:Background: Depressive disorders in childhood and adolescence are a major health problem and often follow a chronic course with severe consequences in later life. Depressive disorders cause the highest burden of disease in this age group across all medical conditions. Treatment adherence is usually very poor, and the use of antidepressant drugs is heavily debated, as suicidal ideations may increase, in particular in the early phase of treatment. Omega-3 fatty acids rich in eicosapentaenoic acid have shown some promising results in over a dozen small scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult major depressive disorders, with only very few published RCTs in children and adolescents. High-quality phase III RCTs are missing. Methods and Design: The omega-3-pMDD trial is a carefully designed phase III RCT to assess the efficacy and safety of omega-3 fatty acids in the early course of pediatric major depressive disorder (MDD). The study is designed as a multi-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial enrolling 220 patients aged 8 to 17 years meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder of at least moderate symptom severity. After a single-blinded placebo-lead-in phase (7 to 10 days) patients are randomly assigned to omega-3 fatty acids or placebo over 36 weeks. Primary outcomes are changes in depression severity, as well as remission and recovery rates. Secondary outcome measures include the omega-3 index and inflammatory parameters as predictors of response. Data analysis will be performed in the intention-to-treat sample using a (generalized) linear random intercept regression model. Through sampling of blood, hair, saliva, and urine, further putative biological markers for depression and omega-3 fatty response will be investigated. Discussion: This trial addresses if omega-3 fatty acids play a role in the pathogenesis of pediatric MDDs and have antidepressant properties, in particular in clinically depressed children and adolescents with a pre-existing omega-3 fatty acid deficiency, increased markers of oxidative stress, and/or markers of (low grade) inflammation. Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the local ethics committees. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals irrespective of specific outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03167307.

Project description:BackgroundWe compared the efficacy and safety of low-intensity atorvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy with moderate-intensity atorvastatin monotherapy in patients requiring cholesterol-lowering therapy.MethodsAt 19 centers in Korea, 290 patients were randomized to 4 groups: atorvastatin 5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg (A5E), ezetimibe 10 mg (E), atorvastatin 5 mg (A5), and atorvastatin 10 mg (A10). Clinical and laboratory examinations were performed at baseline, and at 4-week and 8-week follow-ups. The primary endpoint was percentage change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels at the 8-week follow-up. Secondary endpoints included percentage changes from baseline in additional lipid parameters.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar among the study groups. At the 8-week follow-up, percentage changes in LDL cholesterol levels were significantly greater in the A5E group (49.2%) than in the E (18.7%), A5 (27.9%), and A10 (36.4%) groups. Similar findings were observed regarding the percentage changes in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels. Triglyceride levels were also significantly decreased in the A5E group than in the E group, whereas high-density lipoprotein levels substantially increased in the A5E group than in the E group. In patients with low- and intermediate-cardiovascular risk, 93.3% achieved the target LDL cholesterol levels in the A5E group, 40.0% in the E group, 66.7% in the A5 group, and 92.9% in the A10 group. In addition, 31.4% of patients in the A5E group, 8.1% in E, 9.7% in A5, and 7.3% in the A10 group reached the target levels of both LDL cholesterol < 70 mg/dL and reduction of LDL ≥ 50% from baseline.ConclusionsThe addition of ezetimibe to low-intensity atorvastatin had a greater effect on lowering LDL cholesterol than moderate-intensity atorvastatin alone, offering an effective treatment option for cholesterol management, especially in patients with low and intermediate risks.

Project description:IntroductionManagement of patients with cancer suffering from neuropathic pain refractory to opioids and gabapentinoids remains an important challenge. Duloxetine is one of the choices after first-line treatment fails. The efficacy of duloxetine has been reported in patients with non-cancer disease and in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, but no randomised clinical trials have examined its effects on neuropathic cancer pain refractory to first-line treatment. The objective of this study is to assess the analgesic efficacy of duloxetine in patients suffering from neuropathic cancer pain refractory to opioids and gabapentinoids.Methods and analysisA multi-institutional, prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-parallel trial is planned. The inclusion criteria are adult patients with cancer suffering from neuropathic cancer pain refractory to opioids and gabapentinoids, patients with a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score of 4 or higher and patients with a total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score of less than 20. Patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy are excluded. The study will take place at 14 sites across Japan. Participants will be randomised (1:1 allocation ratio) to a duloxetine intervention group or a placebo control group. Evaluations will be made at baseline (T0 randomisation), day 0 (T1), day 3 (T2) and day 10 (T3). The primary endpoint is defined as the difference in NRS score for pain intensity (average over the previous 24 hours) at T3 between the duloxetine and placebo groups. A sample size of 70 patients will be examined between July 2015 and March 2018.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained at all participating sites.The results of this study will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed journals and the key findings presented at international scientific conferences.Trial registration numberUMIN000017647; Pre-results.Protocol version2.2, 26 April 2017.