Troisdorf

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 evaluate the efficacy and safety of the study drug, IPN10200, and to assess how well it works when compared with placebo in treating Cervical Dystonia (CD) in adults. CD can cause a series of abnormalities and symptoms in the head and neck that can lead to neck pain and stiffness, and headaches. CD is believed to involve deep parts within the brain that control movement, but genetic factors, environmental factors, and abnormalities in the brain may also play a role. The usual treatment for CD includes injecting BoNT into the affected muscles, but the treatment only lasts about 3 months. IPN10200 is designed to last for a longer period. The study will consist of two periods: 1. A Screening Period of up to 4 weeks (28 days) to assess whether a participant can take part in the study and requires at least one visit. 2. A Treatment Period of 36 weeks. On Day 1 of the treatment period, participants will receive either IPN10200 Dose A or Dose B (additional participants may receive IPN10200 Dose C) of the study drug, or placebo distributed into different muscles in the head, neck and shoulders. Participants may continue some other medications, but details need to be recorded. There will be 10 visits to the clinic in person and one remote visits (phone call) (12 visits to the clinic for participants who receive Dose C). Participants will undergo blood samplings, urine collections, physical/neurological examinations, and clinical evaluations. Participants will also need to complete questionnaires throughout the study. The total study duration for a participant will be up to 40 weeks (approximately 9 months).

This non-interventional study will investigate the effectiveness of T-DXd, the patients demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns including prophylactic medications and interventions for reduction of serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and safety event of interest (SEIs), tolerability, and patient survey of T-DXd, in cases with advanced HER2-positive gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma receiving T-DXd as second line of treatment and beyond treatment option. Patients will be treated according to the proposed indication statement in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). No investigational drug will be administered in this study. Data on conventional therapy (including platinum-fluoropyrimidine doublet chemotherapy, nivolumab, ramucirumab-paclitaxel, ramucirumab monotherapy, taxane or irinotecan, and pembrolizumab monotherapy) will also be collected in a disease registry part of the study.

The purpose of the study is to assess the safety and efficacy of increasing doses of IPN10200 with the aim to evaluate the Pharmacodynamics (PD) profile of IPN10200 and to establish the total IPN10200 doses(s) that offer the best efficacy/safety profile when used for the treatment of Adult upper limb (AUL) spasticity.

Originally registered as OBS17104 by Sanofi; transitioned to REGN 05Jul2023. The recruitment period will be 48 months. Data will be collected during routine clinical visits approximately every three months while the patient is on cemiplimab treatment and then approximately every six months for up to 24 months after cemiplimab discontinuation. Patients will be followed from cemiplimab treatment initiation until death, loss to follow-up, study withdrawal, or to the end of the study period (72 months after study launch), whichever occurs first.

The presence of a BRAFV600E mutation is a marker of poor prognosis in patients with mCRC and associated with a median overall survival (mOS) of approximately 12 to 14 months compared to 20 to 25 months for pa-tients with BRAF wild-type tumors. After 1st line therapy, treatment out-comes with standard therapy are poor in patients with BRAF-mutated mCRC, with response rates (ORR) of ≤ 11%, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) between 1.8 and 2.8 months, and a mOS between 4.1 and 6.2 months. Failure to achieve adequate survival outcomes with standard treatment regimens in patients with BRAF-mutated mCRC has encouraged efforts to combine multiple targeted therapies: With 665 randomized patients, the BEACON CRC trial represents the largest trial and is currently the only phase III study in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. After a safety lead in for dose confirmation of the triplet regimen, the phase III part was per-formed with a total of 665 patients, randomized 1:1:1 to either receive encorafenib plus binimetinib and cetuximab (triplet) or encorafenib plus cetuximab (doublet) or FOLFIRI / IRI plus cetuximab (control). The BEACON CRC study met its primary endpoints Overall Response Rate (ORR) and Overall Survival (OS) comparing Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab vs. Chemotherapy + Cetuximab (ORR: 26 vs. 2%, p\<0.001; OS: median 9.0 vs. 5.4 months, HR 0.52, p\<0.001). The BEACON CRC study was alpha-controlled also for the secondary endpoint comparing Encorafenib + Cetuximab vs. Chemotherapy + Cetuximab in terms of ORR and OS and showed a statistically significant advantage (ORR: 20 vs. 2%, p\<0.001; OS: median 8.4 vs. 5.4 months, HR 0.60, p\<0.001). In terms of safety, the overall frequency of adverse events grade 3/4 was 58% (En-corafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab) vs. 50% (Encorafenib + Cetuximab) vs. 61% (Chemotherapy + Cetuximab). Analysis of Quality of Life data resulted in a longer maintenance of Quality of Life in the Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab arm and the Encorafenib + Cetuximab arm com-pared to Chemotherapy + Cetuximab. Between Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab and Encorafenib + Cetuximab, no relevant differences were reported. With a longer Follow-Up (12.8 months) the updated OS data showed a median OS of 9.3 months in both the Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab arm and the Encorafenib + Cetuximab arm compared to 5.9 months in the control arm. Updated ORR rates were 27% in the triplet arm (p\<0.0001 vs. control), 20% in the doublet arm (p\<0.0001 vs. control) and 2% in the control arm. The safety and tolerability were adequate, manage-able and consistent with the known profiles of BRAF-, MEK-, and EGFR-inhibitors. Regarding the triplet combination, the most common adverse events of any grade were diarrhea (triplet: 62%; control: 48%), dermatitis acneiform (triplet: 49%; control: 39%), nausea (triplet: 45%; control: 41%), and vomiting (triplet: 38%; control: 29%). Regarding the doublet combina-tion, the most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (34%), diarrhea (33%), fatigue (doublet 30%; triplet 33%; control 27%) and derma-titis acneiform (29%). The most common updated grade ≥3 adverse events regarding the triplet combination were diarrhea (triplet: 11%; control: 10%), abdominal pain (triplet: 6%; control: 5%), nausea (triplet: 5%; control: 2%,vomiting (triplet: 5%; control: 3%) and intestinal obstruction (triplet 5%; control 3%). With the doublet regimen, the most common updated grade ≥3 adverse events were intestinal obstruction (doublet 5%), asthenia (doublet 4%; triplet 4%; control 5%), fatigue (doublet 4%; triplet 2%; control 5%), diarrhea (3%) and abdominal pain (3%). Based on these data, it is expected that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) will approve encorafenib plus cetuximab for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic BRAFV600E-mutant CRC, who have received prior systemic therapy. Data from pivotal clinical trials are usually based on a selected patient population in order to provide standardized results in the given indication. However, after marketing authorization usage in a broader patient popula-tion is to be expected. Therefore, BERINGCRC - designed as a prospective (allowing initial retrospective documentation), longitudinal, non-interventional study - will investigate the real-world effectiveness, quality of life, safety and tolerability of encorafenib and cetuximab in BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC patients, who have received prior systemic therapy.

The evaluation of CCCA in the HR+/HER2- invasive lobular breast cancer patient population allows assessment of treatment efficacy with an achievable sample size of HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients within an acceptable and scientifically meaningful duration of recruitment. CCCA can be assessed immediately after last patients end of treatment. Central blinded pathological assessment of CCCA is planned in this study as a standardized preparation of the sampled tissue by the central pathologist. This pathologist is blinded regarding the study therapy administered, i. e. with or without capivasertib. The addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant in many clinical trials correlates with an improvement in PFS compared to fulvestrant alone in patients with HR+/HER2- locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. This effect was observed regardless of a PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway activation. None of the ongoing studies investigate the effects of the combined treatment in invasive lobular breast cancer. Given that these tumors are less likely to respond to chemotherapy, identification of patients that can be spared from chemotherapy is desirable. On the other hand, it is important to identify patients with invasive lobular breast cancer not responding to neoadjuvant ET who might be at increased risk for recurrence, who would therefore potentially benefit from further adjuvant therapies including chemotherapy. Given the high rates of PI3K pathway alterations in such tumors, it is expected that the CCCA rate could be increased by adding capivasertib to fulvestrant. GBG expect that the potential benefit of improved CCCA rate with a combination treatment compared to fulvestrant monotherapy would outweigh the potential risks due to added toxicity, which has already been shown in clinical trials to be well tolerated by patients.

This is a prospective, multicenter, phase IV, one-arm, open-label clinical trial investigating patients treated with ribociclib and standard of care endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive (HR+) / human epidermal growth factor receptor negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer in the first therapy line. Patients eligible for this trial will receive on-label ribociclib according to Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and as well as the specified inclusion/exclusion criteria. The survival rates for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at month 12 are the co-primary objectives. Quality of life and toxicity are secondary objectives. Additionally, there is a comprehensive biomarker discovery and validation program included into the study. A total of 1000 patients are planned to be enrolled into this trial in 75 trial sites in Germany. Biomarkers will be evaluated before, during and after treatment or at progression. A comprehensive biospecimens sampling will be done to enable translational research projects and evaluation of potential biomarkers within circulation tumor desoxyribonucleic acid (ctDNA), circulating tumor ribonucleic acid (ctRNA), formaldehyde-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE) tissue, Serum, Plasma and circulating immune cells

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?

Multinational, randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter phase II trial. Eligible patients will be randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to Experimental Arm (FDG-PET-based small volume accelerated radiotherapy with concurrent standard of care chemotherapy) or Conventional Arm (standard FDG-PET-based radiotherapy with concurrent standard of care chemotherapy). Patients showing complete response, partial response, or stable disease following chemoradiotherapy will receive standard of care consolidation therapy with durvalumab (fixed dose of 1500 mg q4w) for up to 12 months or until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity, patient´s wish, or investigator´s decision, whichever comes first. After end of durvalumab therapy, patients will undergo safety follow up for 90 (+7) days followed by survival follow up until overall end of study. Overall end of study will be reached 24 months after the last patient has started durvalumab therapy. Patients showing PD following chemoradiotherapy will be treated according to investigator´s decision but will be followed up until overall end of study.