Windsor

This is a study evaluating the safety and efficacy of bomedemstat (MK-3543) compared with the best available therapy (BAT) in participants with essential thrombocythemia (ET) who have an inadequate response to or are intolerant of hydroxyurea. The primary study hypothesis is that bomedemstat is superior to the best available therapy with respect to durable clinicohematologic response (DCHR).

The goal of this study is to evaluate nemtabrutinib compared with investigator's choice of ibrutinib or acalabrutinib in participants with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who have not received any prior therapy. The primary hypotheses are that (1) nemtabrutinib is non-inferior to ibrutinib or acalabrutinib with respect to objective response rate (ORR) per International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (iwCLL) Criteria 2018 by blinded independent central review (BICR) and (2) nemtabrutinib is superior to ibrutinib or acalabrutinib with respect to progression free survival (PFS) per iwCLL Criteria 2018 by BICR.

Per Protocol Amendment 08, overall survival (OS) was moved to be a secondary outcome measure.

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).

Background: The presence of cancer in the axillary lymph nodes on needle biopsy in patients with early stage breast cancer before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been the determinant of the need for axillary treatment (in the form of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or axillary radiotherapy (ART)) after completion of NACT. Treatment to the axilla damages lymphatic drainage from the arm and patients can subsequently develop lymphoedema, restricted shoulder movement, pain, numbness, and other sensory problems. As more effective chemotherapy is now available that results in complete eradication of cancer in the axilla in around 40 to 70% of patients, extensive axillary treatment might no longer be necessary in patients with no evidence of residual nodal disease. Aim: To assess whether, omitting further axillary treatment (ALND and ART) for patients with early stage breast cancer and axillary nodal metastases on needle biopsy, who after NACT have no residual cancer in the lymph nodes on sentinel node biopsy, is non-inferior to axillary treatment in terms of disease free survival (DFS) and results in reduced risk of lymphoedema at 5 years. Methods: Study design: A pragmatic, phase 3, open, randomised, multicentre trial and embedded economic evaluation in which participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Study population: T1-3N1M0 breast cancer patients aged 18 years or older, with needle biopsy proven nodal metastases, who after NACT have no residual cancer in the lymph nodes on dual tracer sentinel node biopsy and removal of at least 3 lymph nodes (sentinel nodes and marked involved node). Intervention: All participants will receive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted treatment, endocrine therapy and radiotherapy to breast or chest wall, if indicated according to local guidelines. Patients in the intervention group will not receive further axillary treatment (ALND or ART), whereas those receiving standard care will receive axillary treatment (ALND or ART) as per local guidelines. Follow-up is annually for at least 5 years. Outcomes: The co-primary outcomes are disease free survival(DFS) and self-reported lymphoedema defined as 'yes' to the two questions participants will be asked - 'arm heaviness during the past year' and 'arm swelling now' from the Lymphoedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire at 5 years. Secondary outcomes: arm function assessed by the QuickDASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) questionnaire; health related quality of life assessed using euroqol EQ-5D-5L; axillary recurrence free interval (ARFI); local recurrence; regional (nodal) recurrence; distant metastasis; overall survival; contralateral breast cancer; non-breast malignancy; costs; quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness. Sample size: A sample size of 1900 patients would have the ability to demonstrate a 3.5% non-inferiority margin with a 5% 1-sided significance level and 85% power, allowing for 7% non-collection of primary outcome data assuming a 90% 5-year disease free survival rate in the control arm. It would also be able to detect at least a 5% difference in proportion of patients with lymphoedema with 90% power, a 5% 2-sided significance level and allowing for 25% non-collection of primary outcome data over 5 years. Analysis plan: All analyses will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis to preserve randomisation, avoid bias from exclusions and preserve statistical power. Time to event outcomes, including disease free survival and axillary recurrence free interval, will be assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using Cox proportional hazards models. The proportion of patients experiencing lymphoedema at 5 years will be compared across trial arms using a chi-squared test and a logistic regression model used to adjust for stratification variables. Arm morbidity and health related quality of life will be scored using the appropriate manuals and assessed using a longitudinal mixed model regression analysis if model assumptions valid or a standardised area-under-the-curve analysis. For economic evaluation, incremental cost per QALY gained at 5 years will be estimated. Timelines for delivery: Total project duration is 120 months based on 6 months for set up; 60 months recruitment period (including an 18 months internal pilot phase); and 54 months for follow up, analysis, writing up and dissemination.

This study will be performed in 2 parts: Dose Escalation and Confirmation (Part 1) and Cohort Expansion (Part 2). Following determination of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) in Part 1, the study plans to proceed with Part 2 using 8 disease-specific expansion cohorts (Cohorts A to H).

This clinical trial is evaluating whether addition of navtemadlin to ruxolitinib treatment will provide more clinical benefit than ruxolitinib alone for patients with Myelofibrosis who have a suboptimal response to ruxolitinib treatment alone. Subjects will start by receiving ruxolitinib alone in the run-in period. Those who demostrate a suboptimal response from ruxolitinib alone will then be randomized 2:1 to receive navtemadlin or navtemadlin placebo as add-on treatment to their ongoing ruxolitinib. Randomized means that subjects will be assigned to a group by chance, like a flip of a coin. The study is blinded, meaning the subjects, doctors, central endpoint assessors and sponsor will not know which add on treatment (navtemadlin or navtemadlin placebo) the subject is receiving.