Active clinical trials for "Prostatic Neoplasms"

A study to see how effective and tolerable radiation therapy along with androgen deprivation therapy is in treating prostate cancer.

We are studying whether men being treated for prostate cancer have the same amount of side effects from either one of two different external radiation treatments: IMRT or PBT. With IMRT, a number of x-ray beams are used to shape the radiation to the prostate. PBT is another type of external radiation treatment for prostate cancer that is used in a few centers in the United States. Protons are tiny particles with positive charge that can be controlled to travel a certain distance and stop. PBT is precise like IMRT, but it uses proton beams instead of x-ray beams. IMRT and PBT aim to deliver most of the radiation to the prostate cancer while sparing surrounding tissues. Both IMRT and PBT have been used in the treatment of prostate cancer and are thought to be equally effective at curing prostate cancer. However, both treatments have also been shown to cause the potential side effects of radiation, including bowel, urinary and erectile problems. It is possible that side effect rates with PBT will be lower, the same, or even higher than with IMRT, but this has not been studied well to date. Though both of these radiation therapies have been used in the past to treat prostate cancer, there has never been a study that compares the effects of these two therapies to see which one has less side effects. In this research study, we are comparing IMRT to PBT to determine which therapy best minimizes the side effects of treatment.

The purpose of this study is to compare the effects (good and bad) on patients with prostate cancer by comparing the standard dose of radiation therapy (44 treatments over 8½-9 weeks) with a higher daily dose of radiation (5 treatments over 1-2 weeks) to see if the effects of the treatments are similar or better.

The purpose of the study was to understand if there was benefit in continued treatment with a medicine called enzalutamide, when starting treatment with docetaxel and prednisolone (a standard chemotherapy for prostate cancer), after the prostate cancer had gotten worse when treated with enzalutamide alone.

The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of niraparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) repair anomalies.

A prospective, multi-center, single-arm study, planned in 150 patients. The primary objective of the study is to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided transurethral ultrasound therapy system (TULSA-PRO) intended to ablate prostate tissue of patients with localized, organ-confined prostate cancer.

This phase II trial studies the side effects and how well abiraterone acetate, niclosamide, and prednisone work in treating patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer. Androgens can cause the growth of prostate cells. Hormone therapy using abiraterone acetate may fight prostate cancer by lowering the amount of androgen the body makes. Niclosamide is a drug that may block another signal that can cause prostate cancer cell growth. Prednisone is a drug that can help lessen inflammation. Giving abiraterone acetate, niclosamide, and prednisone may be a better treatment for patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of CAN-2409 immunotherapy in patients undergoing active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. CAN-2409 involves the use of aglatimagene besadenovec to kill tumor cells and stimulate a cancer vaccine effect. Killing tumor cells in an immune stimulatory environment induces the body's immune system to detect and destroy cancer cells. CAN-2409 has been well tolerated in previous trials in patients with prostate cancer and other tumor types. Biochemical, pathologic and immune responses have been demonstrated in newly diagnosed and recurrent prostate cancer. The hypothesis is that CAN-2409 can lead to improvement in the clinical outcome for patients with prostate cancer. Participants will be randomized to the CAN-2409 or control arm at a 2:1 ratio. Both arms receive standard of care active surveillance evaluations.

Radiation therapy is considered a standard treatment option for the management of localized prostate cancer. Among the 20-30% of patients who recur, there is no consensus on the optimal salvage therapy. Salvage options available for isolated local recurrence include; temporary or permanent implantation of radioactive seeds into the prostate, complete removal of the prostate gland, use of low temperatures to treat the disease (cryotherapy), and high frequency ultrasound to treat the disease. There are risks of complications associated with all these treatments, and there is presently no consensus as to which treatment is the best. The aim of this pilot study is to look at the feasibility and toxicities of whole gland salvage treatment of the prostate using temporary implantation of radioactive seeds into the prostate.

Two radiation therapy techniques are commonly used for the treatment of intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). However, both have limitations. Brachytherapy, in which radioactive seeds are inserted into the prostate, produces excellent outcomes but is invasive and not all patients are eligible or willing to receive this treatment. EBRT, while gentle at the time of delivery, tends to be very prolonged and may have poorer outcomes than brachytherapy. This study will examine the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), in which patients are given only a few, high dose radiation treatments. Treatments are short, non-invasive, applicable to patients not able to do brachytherapy, and may be more effective than conventional EBRT. This study will compare SABR with EBRT in terms of the rates of acute and late toxicities for each treatment, disease-free survival, and health-related quality of life measures.