Active clinical trials for "Sarcoma, Clear Cell"

This is a multi-center, single arm intended to evaluate the anti-tumor effect of ARQ 197 in patients with microphthalmia transcription factor associated (MiT) tumors. MiT tumors include clear cell sarcoma, alveolar soft parts sarcoma, and translocation associated renal cell carcinoma.

This randomized phase I/II clinical trial is studying the side effects and best dose of gamma-secretase/notch signalling pathway inhibitor RO4929097 when given together with vismodegib and to see how well they work in treating patients with advanced or metastatic sarcoma. Vismodegib may slow the growth of tumor cells. Gamma-secretase/notch signalling pathway inhibitor RO4929097 may stop the growth of tumor cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Giving vismodegib together with gamma-secretase/notch signalling pathway inhibitor RO4929097 may be an effective treatment for sarcoma.

The purpose of this study is to learn if a vaccine made from the patient's own tumor cells, then genetically modified to secrete granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), will delay or stop the growth of the tumor. It will also look at the vaccine's effects on the immune system and the side effects of giving a vaccine made from a subject's own cancer cells.

This is a Phase I trial with new experimental drugs such as simvastatin in combination with topotecan and cyclophosphamide in the hopes of finding a drug that may work against tumors that have come back or that have not responded to standard therapy. This study will define toxicity of high dose simvastatin in combination with topotecan and cyclophosphamide and evaluate for cholesterol levels and IL6/STAT3 pathway changes as biomarkers of patient response.

After a screening, which consists of biopsy, physical examination, initial diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI-MRI) or body computed tomography (CT) scan, blood tests and case analysis on Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meeting, a patient will receive the hypofractionated radiotherapy 10x 3.25 Gy with regional hyperthermia (twice a week) within two weeks. The response analysis in CT or DWI-MRI and toxicity assessment will be performed after at least 6 weeks. At the second MDT meeting, a final decision about resectability of the tumor will be made. In case of resectability or consent for amputation, if required, a patient will be referred to surgery. In case of unresectability or amputation refusal, the patient will receive the second part of the treatment which consists of 4x 4 Gy with hyperthermia (twice a week).

Rationale: The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab induces relatively high response rates and promising response depth in late stage melanoma. Nevertheless, it takes time till responses occur and still a significant number of patients do not benefit from treatment, due to rapid progressive disease or resistance to therapy. In contrast to immunotherapies targeted therapies (BRAF or MEK inhibitors), can induce faster and higher response rates, but often of shorter duration, even when combined. Initial attempts of combining vemurafenib or dabrafenib + trametinib with ipilimumab failed due to toxicity. Patients with elevated levels of serum LDH are less likely to respond to immunotherapy compared to patients with normal LDH levels. This does not mean that such patients do not benefit at all from immunotherapy. This raises the question, whether response rates upon immunotherapy can be improved by upfront reduction of tumor burden and normalization of LDH. The investigators postulate that induction therapy with combined BRAF+MEK inhibition, and subsequent LDH normalization, can improve response rates to the rates seen in LDH normal patients. To address this question the investigators have setup a randomized phase 2 trial in metastatic melanoma patients with elevated serum LDH comparing the response rates upon ipilimumab + nivolumab versus ipilimumab + nivolumab preceded by 6 weeks of vemurafenib + cobimetinib induction. Furthermore, less than half of the patients treated with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab received maintenance nivolumab, and approximately 40% of all patients discontinued treatment for toxicity. In 70% of patients responses were ongoing despite discontinuation of treatment due to toxicity. This raises the question, to what extent does maintenance therapy add clinical benefit to an ongoing immune response. Preclinical data indicate even that continuous restimulation of T cells can result in activation induced non-responsiveness (anergy). Therefore, a secondary objective of this trial will be, to test a response-driven nivolumab scheme Objectives: Primary Objective • To compare efficacy of induction vemurafenib + cobimetinib followed by ipilimumab + nivolumab (Arm A) versus upfront ipilimumab + nivolumab treatment (Arm B). Secondary Objectives To describe duration of response and overall survival induced by vemurafenib + cobimetinib followed by the combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab (Arm A) as compared to ipilimumab + nivolumab (Arm B) To describe the rate and quality of toxicity observed in the two study arms To describe the rate of ongoing responses upon response-driven flat dose (240mg q2w or 480mg q4w) nivolumab maintenance To determine the immune-activating capacity of induction therapy with vemurafenib + cobimetinib followed by the combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab. To evaluate the changes in systemic immune competence Study design: This is a two-arm phase 2 study consisting of 200 BRAFV600E/K mutation-positive late-stage melanoma patients with an elevated baseline LDH level (> ULN, < 3xULN) randomized 1:1 (stratified according to LDH) to receive either vemurafenib + cobimetinib directly followed by ipilimumab + nivolumab (Arm A) or standard first line ipilimumab + nivolumab (Arm B). Subsequently, patients in both arms will receive flat dose (240mg q2w or 480mg q4w) nivolumab maintenance in a response-driven manner. Study population: Stage IV, or unresectable stage III, BRAFV600E/K mutation positive melanoma patients, naïve for BRAF/MEK, PD-1/PD-L1 or CTLA-4 targeting therapy, 18 years and older. Intervention: Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive either 6 weeks vemurafenib 960 mg bid + cobimetinib 60 mg QD 21-day on, 7-day off (21/7) schedule, directly followed by 4 courses of ipilimumab 3mg/kg q3wk + nivolumab 1mg/kg q3wk (Arm A) or first line standard 4 courses of ipilimumab 3mg/kg q3wk + nivolumab 1mg/kg q3wk (Arm B). Subsequently, patients in both arms will receive nivolumab maintenance flat dose (240mg q2w or 480mg q4w) in a response-driven manner according to their response at week 18. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary Endpoints • Compare the best overall response rate (BORR) according to RECIST 1.1 of both arms at week 18 from start of treatment. Secondary Endpoints Progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST 1.1 Overall survival (OS) Percentage of grade 3/4 toxicities according to CTCv4.03 Percentage of ongoing response, percentage of patients requiring re-induction, response percentage upon re-induction Changes in tumor-specific T cell responses

RATIONALE: Drugs used in chemotherapy use different ways to stop tumor cells from dividing so they stop growing or die. Combining chemotherapy with peripheral stem cell transplant may allow the doctor to give higher doses of chemotherapy drugs and kill more tumor cells. PURPOSE: This phase II trial is studying how well chemotherapy followed by surgery and radiation therapy with or without stem cell transplant work in treating patients with relapsed or refractory Wilms' tumor or clear cell sarcoma of the kidney.

This research study is studying biomarkers in tissue samples from patients with high-risk Wilms tumor. Studying samples of tissue from patients with cancer in the laboratory may help doctors to learn more about changes that occur in DNA and identify biomarkers related to cancer.