Hildesheim

This non-interventional study aims to provide information on real-world effectiveness, safety and tolerability, management of adverse events, QoL and patient compliance of patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence treated with ribociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) ± luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) with curative intent according to the current effective local summary of product characteristics. In order to put the results of patients treated with ribociclib into perspective, socio-economic data, data on QoL and patient compliance will also be collected from patients treated with abemaciclib + endocrine therapy (ET) ± LHRH as described in the current effective local summary of product characteristics. To understand reasons for treatment decision, and to analyze the clinical adoption of ribociclib + AI ± LHRH after EU approval over time, baseline data will be collected from cohorts of ribociclib + AI ± LHRH, abemaciclib + ET ± LHRH, and additionally from patients treated with ET monotherapy ± LHRH and analyzed cross-sectionally. The study is planned to be rolled out into a broad set of German and Austrian breast centers and gynecological practices to describe clinical routine in a representative subset of the local healthcare eco-system. It will gather insights into the potential benefits and risks associated with ribociclib + AI ± LHRH in the adjuvant treatment of HR+/HER2- eBC patients at high risk of recurrence. This knowledge will inform about clinical decision-making and contribute to improved patient outcomes in routine practice.

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of iberdomide maintenance to lenalidomide maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in participants with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM).

see brief summary

The MINERVA Trial aims to evaluate safety, efficacy and quality of life (QoL) for the combination of Abemaciclib with an Aromatase Inhibitor or Fulvestrant in pre- and postmenopausal patients with metastatic hormone receptor positive HER2 negative breast cancer in the first line setting. Side effect monitoring and patient reported outcomes will be captured using the web- and app-based CANKADO digital health application. Via this user-friendly tool the patients can document their therapy side effects (e.g. diarrhea) and outcomes on a day-to-day basis. The capturing of side effects using the digital health application will be done additionally to the regular AE documentation. Furthermore, translational research objectives of this trial include the investigation of biomarkers (ct-DNA, germline DNA) to evaluate whether they can give insights into the reasons for response, intrinsic or acquired resistance to the combined endocrine

International, multi-center, randomised, open label, superiority phase III trial of elacestrant vs standard endocrine therapy in patients with ER+/HER2- breast cancer and ctDNA relapse. 1. ctDNA screening phase: After verification of the eligibility criteria for screening, patients will enter the ctDNA screening phase of the study in which plasma samples will be collected and tested with ctDNA assay to detect the presence of ctDNA. The test will be performed every 6 months from study entry until the end of accrual (approximately 5.7 years). During the screening phase, patients will be treated with standard adjuvant endocrine therapy \[either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor (exemestane, anastrozole or letrozole)\] and followed-up as per standard of care. The outcome of the serial ctDNA assessments performed during the screening phase will be disclosed to investigators. Patients who are found to be ctDNA-negative at the end of the screening period will not be followed further in this study. Patients who are found to be ctDNA-positive at one of the screening time points will undergo an imaging work-up to assess the presence of distant metastases. Patients for whom the imaging work-up confirms no evidence of distant metastases or locoregional recurrence will be eligible for the randomised phase of the study provided they meet all other eligibility criteria. Patients for whom the imaging work-up shows evidence of distant metastases or locoregional recurrence will be excluded. 2. Randomised trial: Patients will be randomised 1:1 within 4 weeks from the date of ctDNA detection (i.e., the date on which the results of the test are received) between standard endocrine treatment (the same they were receiving when tested ctDNA positive) versus elacestrant. In the absence of a withdrawal criteria, treatment in both arms will be administered for: * For patients on ET between 1 to 5 years (12 to 60 months) at the time of randomisation: 2 to 6 years (allowing for 7 years of ET at the end of the study treatment). * For patients on ET between 5 to 7.5 years (60 to 90 months) at the time of randomisation: 2 years. After completion of the protocol treatment period, treatment will be left at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients in both arms will undergo intensive follow-up with ctDNA tests at week 4 and week 16 after randomisation and every 16 weeks thereafter for a maximum of 3 years (36 months or 156 weeks) to assess ctDNA kinetics. In addition, the occurrence of distant metastases, locoregional recurrences and second cancers will be assessed via yearly mammograms and bone scans and 16-weekly CT scans thorax/abdomen for a maximum of 3 years after randomisation. Afterwards, follow-up will continue as per standard of care. All randomised patients will be followed-up until 3 years after the enrolment of the last patient. End of study: End of study occurs when all the following criteria have been satisfied: All patients have completed their end of study visit. If a patient discontinues the follow-up due to withdrawal of consent, loss to follow-up, or death, the end of study participation is defined as the time point when one of these events occurred The trial is mature for all analyses defined in the protocol and the database has been cleaned and frozen for these analyses.

For many patients with myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (STEMI), the time from presentation to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) exceeds established goals. Formalized data feedback is one strategy proposed to reduce treatment time in STEMI-patients. The aim of this multicenter study is to evaluate whether systematic data analysis and feedback leads to shorter contact-to-balloon and door-to-balloon times and reduces mortality in different regional care networks serving patients with STEMI. The multicenter trial includes hospitals with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capacity. Existing protocols encourage prompt transfer of patients with STEMI to the PCI center and emphasize minimizing time to treatment. In each participating center, all patients presenting with STEMI are enrolled. The study is conducted prospectively during five consecutive 3-month periods (quarters). Data collection is web-based and identical for the five quarters. For each center, time points from initial contact with the medical system to revascularization are assessed, analyzed and presented in an interactive session to hospital and emergency services staff. This formalized data feedback is performed at the end of each quarter. The multi-phase FITT-STEMI project is structured as follows: Part I (Pilot Phase) Patients presenting during the first three-month period are included as the reference group. Data from patients with STEMI presenting during the next four quarters are presented in the same manner. Comparisons between the reference group and the next quarters will be made with the Gehan and Pearson χ2 tests. Part II (Implementation Phase) Following the Pilot Phase started as feasibility study including a group of 6 different hospital systems of STEMI care, the multicenter FITT-STEMI-Implementation-Phase was started to investigate the effect of standardized documentation, analysis and systematic feedback-intervention on prognosis within a large group of different hospitals capable of primary PCI. This study is performed over 6 quarters including 3 feedback-sessions, and so far, 46 different PCI-hospitals capable of primary PCI participate at the FITT-STEMI-implementation-phase. Following the initial study period with quarterly feedback-sessions, data collection is continued, and in all of these hospitals feedback-sessions with the EMS- and hospital-staff are held once a year (after quarters 8, 12, 16, and so on). Participating hospitals So far, a total of 53 hospital-systems with primary PCI capacity and cooperating non-PCI-hospitals participate at the FITT-STEMI-program. At the PCI-Centers, 24 h PCI capability existing for at least one year prior to inclusion, at least two interventional cardiologists who could take call, and a volume of at least 250 PCI procedures as well as 50 PCI procedures in STEMI patients per year are required for participation at the project. All 6 key strategies of the ACC D2B-initiative (Bradley EH, NEJ 2006) were endorsed by the hospitals before participating in the project. All hospitals ensured prompt transfer of patients with STEMI to the PCI centers minimizing time to treatment. The overall geographic catchment area currently serves a population of more than 10 million people in Germany with more than 5,500 STEMI patients per year, which is consistent with \> 10 % of the German population and with \> 10% of the patients treated with acute STEMI in German hospitals per year. Estimated Enrollment: 50,000 participants (Phases I and II). Part III (Advance Phase) This phase of the multi-phase FITT-STEMI aims to develop, introduce and evaluate prospectively an automated, highly standardized feedback tool informing participating centers on key performance characteristics (procedural and clinical outcomes). A stepped wedge design with baseline phase will be used. The participating (newly recruited or already established) centres will be randomly allocated to switching over from the implemented feedback form to the new automated, highly standardized feedback tool; the switch-over process is staggered over time. Estimated Enrollment: 60,000 participants (Phases I - III).

The GMALL registry serves the purpose of ALL research and quality assurance. The Registry collects data about diagnostics, treatment and outcome of Adult ALL Patients in the clinical routine, whether or not the patient is treated within a clinical trial.

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a rare hematologic disorder that can lead to a greater risk of bleeding or a prolonged bleeding time due to an autoimmune-mediated deficiency of platelets. In recent years, new treatment options for patients with immune thrombocytopenia have emerged. The results of published clinical studies on ITP can only be used for broad patient care to a limited extent, as they are designed for a patient population with clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Real world data collected from this registry will help to better understand the diagnosis and therapy of ITP patients in everyday treatment and to more effectively direct individual patients to optimal therapy, thus improving their outcomes. By collecting biospecimens, this project will contribute new knowledge to the study of ITP through standardized, systematic, and high-quality collection and storage of patient samples and associated data. The registry collects clinical data from patients diagnosed with ITP at defined points in the course of the disease. The Data collection includes a range of clinical measures, disease-related factors, treatment/treatment course and outcomes, complications during treatment and Qol, fatigue scoring and survival data (up to 5 years). The data are collected prospectively. In addition, patients can be included retrospectively up to 12 months after the initial diagnosis if continuous documentation can be provided at the treatment centre. In both cases, a written declaration of consent is obligatory.

Femara (letrozole) is an extensively investigated, marketed aromatase inhibitor (AI) widely used as treatment in the maintenance phase of estrogen-receptor (ER) positive breast cancer, as it inhibit the synthesis of estrogens. Estrogen is a well known driver of cancer growth in ER-positive tumors and a high percentage of the epithelial ovarian cancers express ER as well. Of which low grade ovarian cancers demonstrates the highest level of expression, supporting our strategy of a sub-group analysis (LOGOS). Therefore, letrozole in this study be investigated prospectively and evaluated as maintenance therapy after standard surgical and chemotherapy treatment in comparison to placebo (which is the current standard maintenance treatment) in subjects with primary, ER-positive low or high grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer (including fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer) of FIGO Stage II-IV, whose cancer has not progressed by the end of the platinum-based chemotherapy. The objectives are to evaluate the letrozole maintenance treatment compared to placebo in terms of * progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) * overall survival (OS) * quality-adjusted progression free survival (QAPFS) * time to first subsequent treatment (TFST) * quality-adjusted time without symptoms of toxicity (Q-TWiST) * health related quality of life (QoL) assessed by EQ-5D-5L, FACT-ES and FACT-O questionnaires Methods: 540 for this study eligible subjects are 1:1 allocated in this randomized, controlled, double-blinded, multi-centre study to either the test (letrozole) or control (placebo) group. The maximum maintenance treatment duration is 5 years or until symptoms of toxicity or progression of underlying disease. Health and health-related quality of life will continuously be assessed at study entry and during routine recalls which are scheduled every 12 weeks for the first 2 years, followed by every 24 weeks for the next 3 years. Procedures performed to assess the participants' health are the same as are performed during the regular routine ovarian cancer follow-up visits: blood tests, physical as well as gynaecological examinations and may include imaging. In addition, the participants are asked to complete during the study quality of life (QoL) specific questionnaires and wear an activity tracker for one week just before the scheduled visits. These assessments will be used for the evaluation of letrozole's efficacy and burden in comparison to the standard maintenance treatment. Survival follow-up data after the mainentance treatment duration of 5 years (study end) are obtained for up to another 7 years.

About 15% of breast cancers lack both, expression of ER and PR receptors, and amplification/over-expression of HER2 receptors, and are thus described as triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). TNBC is known for poor prognosis, aggressive patterns of disease, and significant molecular heterogeneity. (Neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is standard of care in all node-positive and in node-negative patients with a tumour size \>5 mm according to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. However, TNBC patients with lower stage disease do clearly have a better prognosis compared to more advanced stages. Patients with stage I-II node-negative disease have 3-5 year iDFS rates of 80-90% (with majority of relapses within the first three years) as shown in several trials. Our own results from the PlanB- and ADAPT-trials, and pooled analysis with SUCCESS C-trials show 3-year iDFS of 86-90% in node-negative TNBC with a tumour size \< 3 cm. Although survival results appear much better in the lower vs. higher stages, there is a high clinical need in this most common group of TNBC patients in Western Europe and USA. In the neoadjuvant setting, it has been shown that the prognosis of patients with TNBC is strongly dependent on their response to NACT: Patients achieving pathological complete response (pCR), or a near pCR (an excellent response after NACT (residual cancer burden (RCB) score 0-1), in some studies do have an excellent prognosis that is not significantly different from that observed in other breast cancer subtypes. However, patients with a less responsive disease (i.e., with RCB Score 2-3) suffer from a significantly worse prognosis compared to non-TNBC. Chemotherapy in TNBC The optimal chemotherapy regimen for patients with TNBC remains to be identified. Standard anthracycline-taxane (A/T)-based NACT combinations render pCR rates between 25-50%. However, the survival impact of anthracyclines remains controversial due to conflicting results of different randomized trials. Adding carboplatin (carbo) to A/T-containing poly-NACT or use of dose-intensified poly-NACT significantly increases pCR-rates up to 49-60% in mostly stage II-III disease with conflicting survival results and higher toxicity. Hence, use of pragmatic taxane-carboplatin anthracycline-free combinations appears as an effective treatment option in TNBC instead of further treatment escalation. This probably is independent of the germline BRCA (gBRCA) status, due to its general chemo-predictive effect. Unfortunately, no prospective phase-III-data are available so far. However, indirect comparison between trials renders similar pCR rates in taxane-carboplatin based vs. A/T+/-carbo-based regimens in early TNBC. In the ADAPT-TN neoadjuvant trial, the taxane-carbo arm (12-week nab-paclitaxel (nab-pac)+carbo) was well tolerable (only 10% SAE-rate), highly effective (pCR, ypT0/is/ypN0, of 46%) and superior to the gemcitabine (gem)-arm (nab-pac+gem, pCR of 29%). In this study, omission of further chemotherapy was allowed in patients with pCR after 12 weeks of therapy and was not associated with decreased survival after 3 years \[5\] and longer follow up. Although a standard chemotherapy as well as optimal therapy duration are still to be defined, several studies are showing a comparable efficacy for longer vs. shorter adjuvant treatments in TNBC \[3\], as well as a similar efficacy regarding pCR in HR-negative (in contrast to HR-positive) early breast cancer (eBC) \[26\]. Moreover 6 vs. 4 cycles of the same chemotherapy (AC or pac weekly) yielded a similar survival outcome in eBC despite of HR-status. No such comparison regarding treatment duration is available for modern antibody-drug conjugates like sacituzumab govitecan (SG). Therefore, an examination of shorter (12 weeks vs. 18 weeks) regimen as neoadjuvant treatment appears to be a very promising strategy at least in patients with lower risk disease or in elderly patients, who do not qualify for polychemotherapy treatments. In the Keynote-522 trial combination of carboplatin/taxane-anthracycline NACT with the anti-PD1-antibody pembrolizumab (PEM) has been shown to be associated with a significantly higher pCR and clinically meaningful better EFS and a trend to better OS. Noteworthy only patients with more advanced stages IIa-III TNBC were included into the Keynote-522 trial. Although this effect was independent of clinically assessed nodal status, there is still some uncertainty on the optimal treatment in patients with clinical stage I. In the metastatic setting, SG as a Trop-2-antibody-drug-conjugate has been shown to be highly efficacious in severely pre-treated patients (all with A/T pre-treated tumours, most of them carboplatin and 1/3 also anti-PD1 pre-treated) compared to chemotherapy of investigator´s choice. Treatment with SG was associated with significant longer median PFS (5.5 vs. 1.7 months) and longer median OS (12.1 vs. 6.7 months). Objective response was dramatically higher in the SG group vs. treatment by physician´s choice group (34.9 vs. 4.7%), in particular in the 2nd-3rd-line therapy (40% vs. 4%). Moreover, Tropics-02 trial has shown higher efficacy of SG vs. chemotherapy of investigator´s choice in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. In the neoadjuvant setting, recently presented results from the NeoSTAR trial show a promising pCR-rate of 30% and RCB 0-1-rate of 36% in TNBC patients with mostly stage II-III-disease (about 80%) after only 4 cycles of SG. The following clinical questions are of highest medical need 1. Can 12-18 weeks neoadjuvant treatment with SG alone or in combination with PEM be associated with comparable pCR-rates (but more favourable safety profile) as shown for polychemotherapy in TNBC patients at lower relapse risk in historical controls? 2. Can SG-based therapy, as the most promising agent in patients with chemo-resistant disease, be associated with a such better prognosis (measured by 3-year-iDFS) compared to historical controls, which would make a randomized phase III-trial obsolete?