Clermont Ferrand

The study comprises of a dose escalation part and, a concurrent backfill part. 1. The dose escalation part will estimate the RD of \[177Lu\]Lu-NeoB in combination with ribociclib and fulvestrant; four provisional dose levels are planned to be tested: 100 millicurie (mCi) (initial dose), 150mCi, 200 mCi and 250mCi in cohorts of 3 to 6 participants. After inclusion of each cohort of 3 to 6 participants, the incidence rate of DLTs will be compared to the pre-defined toxicity rate boundaries to decide whether the next cohort will receive a lower, higher or same dose or whether the trial will be terminated. 2. The backfill part will allow enrollment to a previously cleared dose level (during escalation part) in order to obtain additional safety, tolerability as well as preliminary efficacy data. During the backfill part, the cumulative incidence rate of DLTs will also be compared to the pre-defined toxicity rate boundaries to determine if escalation should be restarted from a lower dose level. 3. The recommended dose (RD) will be determined considering all available data from the escalation and backfill part. During screening, study participants will receive the investigational imaging agent \[68Ga\]Ga-NeoB. An additional administration of the \[68Ga\]Ga-NeoB will be performed potentially at Cycle 2 Day 15, and within 4-8 weeks from the last administration of \[177Lu\]Lu-NeoB for a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) or PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Study treatment will include \[177Lu\]Lu-NeoB on day 1 of each 28-day cycle (+ =\< 3 days) for 6 cycles, ribociclib (once daily; days 1 to 21 in a 28-day cycle) and fulvestrant (C1D1, C1D15, C2D1 and every 28 days thereafter) until disease progression. Pre- and perimenopausal women and men will additionally receive goserelin on day 1 of every cycle. During the treatment period participants will be required to attend a site visit approximately every 28 days, on the first day of each cycle (as well as on C1D2, C1D3, C1D8, C1D15, C2D15, C3D3 and C5D3), to undergo study treatment administration, dosimetry and safety assessments. Tumor assessments are performed every 8 weeks until month 18, every 12 weeks until month 36 and as clinically indicated thereafter, until disease progression. After study treatment discontinuation, participants will be followed up for safety for 8 weeks after their last study treatment administration. Beyond the initial 8 weeks of safety follow-up, all participants will be followed up every 12 weeks until month 36 and every 24 weeks thereafter until month 60 for a total of 5 years from the participant's enrollment in the study, or until death, lost to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent (WoC), whichever occurs first. The end of study is defined as the date of the last visit, scheduled procedure or follow up (or date of death, WoC or lost to follow up, whichever occurs first) of the last participant in the study globally, or at 5 years from the date of the last participant enrolled, whichever occurs earlier.

In this clinical trial, participants with chronic migraine will receive injections with Xeomin or Placebo into muscles of the head and neck. The purpose is to measure the change in monthly migraine days with Xeomin injections compared to Placebo injections. Trial details include: * Trial duration: 52 to 55 weeks; * Screening period: 4 to 5 weeks; * Treatment duration: 4 treatments, each about 12 weeks apart; and * Visit frequency: about every 4 weeks, 14 visits in total. The first and last visit and the 4 treatment visits are on-site, the other 8 visits are remote by phone / video call.

In this clinical trial, participants with episodic migraine will receive injections with Xeomin or Placebo into muscles of the head and neck. The purpose is to measure the change in monthly migraine days with Xeomin injections compared to Placebo injections. Trial details include: * Trial duration: 52 to 55 weeks; * Screening period: 4 to 5 weeks; * Treatment duration: 4 treatments, each about 12 weeks apart; and * Visit frequency: about every 4 weeks, 14 visits in total. The first and last visit and the 4 treatment visits are on-site, the other 8 visits are remote by phone / video call.

Despite substantial progress made in the first- and second line mCRC settings, there are still unmet clinical needs for patients harboring BRAFV600E mutations, especially those with microsatellite stability (MSS) / proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) tumor. The overall survival and access to different treatment in the real-life setting are unknown. Moreover, patient prognosis remains poor and therapeutic resistance to combinations with BRAF inhibitors, is at present, nearly universal. Therefore, it seems essential to prospectively collect clinical and biological data about this rare mCRC subtype. These data will allow us to improve knowledge and to identify clinical and biological factors that could drive therapeutic decisions, predict resistance to treatments, and that are prognostic for survival. In this context, we designed this large, prospective, cohort study to collect clinical data and biological samples to be used for research but also to gather real-world clinical data concerning the treatments and the survival outcomes in patients with BRAFV600E mCRC. This collection of clinical and biological data (tumor tissue and blood samples) will allow us to identify predictive and prognostic biomarkers with several research work packages planned: i. To evaluate the circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) during the metastatic first-, second-, and third-line treatment to: * Evaluate its positive and negative predictive value. * Identify molecular alterations preceding and explaining clinical resistance during BRAF/EGFR inhibition therapy and immunotherapy. ii. To evaluate BRAFV600E mCRC immune environment both at the tumor and blood level (immunomonitoring). iii. To study specific the dMMR/MSI BRAFV600E subgroup. Furthermore, the data collected will describe the therapeutic management of BRAFV600E mCRC patients in the routine-practice setting which will bring very useful data. The results of the COBRAF study could lay the groundwork to better understand BRAFV600E mCRC and to identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers helping the development of new therapeutic approaches in this population.

This is a Phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, international study assessing the efficacy and safety of durvalumab (MEDI4736) and domvanalimab (AB154) compared with durvalumab plus placebo in adults with locally advanced (Stage III), unresectable NSCLC whose disease has not progressed following definitive platinum-based cCRT.

Food protein induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES), is a non-IgE mediated food allergy (FA) which seems to expand, and occurring in infancy. Prevalence of FPIES is unknown. In 2011, Katz published cumulative incidence of cow 'milk FPIES of 3 per 1000 new-borns, from prospective birth cohort in Israel. The offending food depend on the country, probably in relation to eating habits. Cow's milk (CM) is most commonly incriminated and can lead to a chronic digestive disease or in its acute form with potentially life-threatening vomiting/diarrhoea/dehydration, confusing with anaphylaxis. Rice and oat in US, or fish and egg in France are the solid food most often implicated. This disease is usually unknown by clinicians. Its diagnostic is based on clinical history, and differential diagnosis elimination. In 2017, an international workgroup of American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology published clinical criteria to specify the diagnosis and management. According to this last definition (JACI 2017), patient have to meet the major criterion and at least 3 minor criteria. Major criterion is vomiting in the 1- to 4-h period after ingestion of the suspect food and absence of classic IgE-mediated allergic skin or respiratory symptoms. Minor criteria are : 1. A second (or more) episode of repetitive vomiting after eating the same suspect food, 2. Repetitive vomiting episode 1-4 h after eating a different food 3. Extreme lethargy with any suspected reaction 4. Marked pallor with any suspected reaction 5. Need for emergency department visit with any suspected reaction 6. Need for intravenous fluid support with any suspected reaction 7. Diarrhea in 24 h (usually 5-10 h) 8. Hypotension 9. Hypothermia Skin prick test et IgE antibody are negative except atypical FPIES. Acute management begins with clinical evaluation, then administer normal saline bolus quickly. Parenteral ondansetron can be used to stop vomiting. Nutritional management implicate elimination of the offending foods. Only the oral food challenge in hospital can be done to determine resolution of FPIES after a long time of no symptom. The age of tolerance, depend of the food. The average age of acquiring tolerance for cow's milk changes in the literature, around 8-10 months in Korea, around 1 year in Israel, around 5 years in the United States. There is no data in France on the recovery age of CM-FPIES. However, there is a lack of information in literature for describe the evolution and atypical phenotypes. In addition, no prospective French series has been published to date. Our work is a national prospective study, which will collect news cases of acute FPIES diagnosis in sixteen French centres. Main objective: To determine the rate of acquisition of tolerance by food at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years post inclusion. Secondary objectives: * Description of a population of children with newly diagnosed FPIES. 2. Describe the rate of patients with FPIES progressing to IgE sensitization whatever the food at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years post inclusion. 3\. Determine per food the rate of FPIES patients evolving towards IgE sensitization at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years post inclusion. 4\. Describe the rate of patients with FPIES progressing to clinical symptoms of IgE-mediated allergy, whatever the food, at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years post inclusion. 5\. Determine, by food, the rate of FPIES evolving towards clinical symptoms of IgE-mediated allergy at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years post inclusion. 6\. Describe the rate of patients with multiple FPIES at each time point of the study. 7\. Describe at each time the rates of patients with personal atopic comorbidities. The inclusion period will last three years, and the follow up of each patient will last three years. Allergologist will see the patient at inclusion visit, then one time a year. If the patient does not acquire tolerance, an oral food challenge (OFC) in hospital will lead to answer. The aim of our work will help allergologist to manage FPIES children, with French specificities in offending food, and tolerance.

In this study, data from patients with INS will be recorded prospectively, regularly and systematically. The cohort will be composed of patients followed by pediatric nephrologists affiliated with the SNP. Metropolitan France, Reunion Island and Mayotte are the geographical areas concerned. It is planned to integrate other French overseas departments and territories, in particular the West Indies. This is therefore a prospective, multicenter, cohort follow-up study. The data will be centralized via a secure website dedicated to the study. Data will be obtained from: * Medical record data (hospitalization/consultations) as part of routine clinical follow-up for patients with active disease. This information will be medically validated and integrated into the database with the help of clinical research staff. * A telephone interview for annual follow-ups for patients whose absence of active disease no longer requires a systematic medical visit. This structured interview will be administered by telephone by the study's clinical research staff. * Self-administered or hetero-administered quality of life questionnaires (PEDS-QL), self-administered or hetero-administered treatment compliance questionnaires (Morisky's Score), and questionnaires on the aesthetic impact of treatments (Ferriman's Score). These questionnaires will be centralized and reported to the database by the study's clinical research staff.

Malignant hypertension is the most severe form of high blood pressure, fatal if left untreated. It has not disappeared, with an increasing incidence. Patients with the disease, mainly young (35 to 55 years of age), have an unfavorable cardiovascular prognosis (14% of cardiovascular and renal events at 4 years). Despite these facts, scientific research on the subject remains limited. The definitions and diagnostic criteria have not changed since 1929, and the therapeutic recommendations remain empirical. This first prospective and multicentric registry will increase and modernize the knowledge of the disease. From these data, diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations based on solid scientific evidence could be developed. The investigators want to first recruit 500 patients and define their prognosis at 5 years. The impact of the patient's phenotype, type and number of target organs affected will be studied. A modern definition, adapted to these results, could be proposed. The epidemiology of the disease, the care pathways, the target organ disorders and the management carried out in the centers will be described in detail.

This study will consist of two phases: 1. The escalation phase (Ib) will consist of provisionally three dose level cohorts of 3-6 participants investigating the safety, tolerability, and to determine the recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of AMO959 with standard dose of AAA617 +/- ARPI (abiraterone or enzalutamide). Initially AMO959 monotherapy will be administered, and then AMO959 will be given along with AAA617 in the same participants. Dose escalation meetings (DEMs) will occur when all participants in a dose level cohort have completed the DLT evaluation period or have experienced a DLT prior to the end of the evaluation period. 2. The Phase II will follow with 25 participants per arm randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio treated at the RDE(s) of AMO959 along with AAA617 and ARPI (abiraterone or enzalutamide) and AAA617 and ARPI (abiraterone or enzalutamide).

Every year, 12500 primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are diagnosed in France. Metastases occur in half of RCC patients. Management of metastatic RCC is based on systemic treatments (targeted therapies/immunotherapy). However, resistance to systemic treatment is frequent. In case of progression, usual therapeutic attitude is initiating another systemic therapy. Because of the emergence of resistant tumor clonal cells, some patients progress only on few sites while the rest of tumor burden is controlled. In this setting named oligoprogressive disease \[isolated progression of \<3-5 metastase(s)\], ablative treatments of these evolving metastatic sites could allow a disease control and a reduced risk of new metastases occurrence by tumor-cell reembolization. Such strategy is challenging to prolong ongoing systemic treatment and delay further lines. Although RCC was considered radioresistant and radiotherapy with conventional fractionation was mainly used for palliation of symptoms, stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), by delivering high dose in one or few fractions, allows local control for about 90% of RCC metastases through various radiobiological pathways. Furthermore, some data suggest that high-dose focal irradiation of RCC could induce a systemic antitumor response mediated by immunologic effectors(1). This phenomenon ("abscopal effect") could be enhanced in patients under immunotherapy, including anti-PD1. Several retrospective studies and one non-randomized phase-II study highly suggest the interest of SRT as focal ablative treatment in RCC oligometastases with excellent local control rates and low toxicity(2,3). Furthermore, the multicentric retrospective study the sponsor recently conducted within the GETUG group among 101 metastatic RCC patients with oligoprogression under systemic therapy highlighted that SRT on progressive sites provided a median of 8.6-month progression-free survival and allowed to continue current systemic line for 10.5 months. However, to date, there are no prospective data assessing the interest of SRT for management of oligoprogressive metastatic RCC. The sponsor aim to prospectively evaluate the interest of SRT as a therapeutic strategy for local control of oligoprogressive metastatic RCC under ongoing systemic treatment, and consequently delay subsequent systemic treatment.