Reported trial results for Cervical Cancer

5 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

• NCT03260023 · results posted 2 December 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03260023) enrolled a total of 143 participants across several groups. It tested a combination of two treatments — TG4001 (a type of vaccine-based therapy targeting HPV-16, a virus linked to certain cancers) and avelumab (an immunotherapy drug) — in people with advanced cancers that tested positive for HPV-16. The trial ran in phases: an early safety-focused phase (Phase I) with 9 participants, followed by larger Phase II stages involving the remaining participants, some of whom were randomly assigned to receive either the combination treatment or avelumab alone. The groups were also separated based on whether participants had cancer that had spread to the liver. The reported data shows that in the Phase I (safety) stage, zero dose-limiting toxicities — that is, serious side effects serious enough to limit the dose — were recorded in either of the two Phase I groups. For Phase II Part 1 (34 participants on the combination), the reported overall response rate — meaning the proportion of people whose tumours shrank or disappeared by a defined amount — was approximately 16.7%. In the larger Phase II Part 2 group of participants without liver metastases (cancer spread to the liver), the reported overall response rates were approximately 15.2% for the combination group and 13.6% for the avelumab-alone group. A key measure called progression-free survival (PFS) — meaning the reported median time before the cancer grew or the participant died — was 3.0 months for the combination group and 2.8 months for the avelumab-alone group in that same cohort. The reported data shows that for participants with liver metastases, only 5 participants were enrolled in each group, and full outcome figures were not reported for that cohort. The reported data also shows secondary outcome figures for progression-free survival in Phase I: 1.6 months for the lower-dose group and 12.0 months for the higher-dose group, though the Phase I groups were very small (3 and 6 participants respectively), so these figures reflect only a handful of people. For the Phase II Part 1 group, the reported median progression-free survival was 1.5 months. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01048853 · results posted 26 November 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 100 women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer (Stage IA2 or IB1) who had what were considered favourable features on pathology testing. Participants were placed into one of three groups depending on the type of surgery they received: a fertility-sparing approach (44 women), a cone biopsy followed by a simple hysterectomy and lymph node assessment (40 women), or a simple hysterectomy alone (16 women). The trial was measuring whether a more conservative (less extensive) surgical approach was practical and what the rates of cancer returning looked like over two years. The reported data shows that for the primary question — whether the conservative approach was feasible — the key figure measured was the rate of women in the cone biopsy plus hysterectomy group who were found to still have cancer remaining after surgery. That figure was reported as 2.5% of participants in that group, which fell below the 3% threshold the researchers had set in advance. For the secondary outcomes, the reported two-year cancer recurrence rate (the proportion of women whose cancer came back within two years) was 2.4% in the fertility-sparing group, 0% in the cone biopsy plus hysterectomy group, and 12.5% in the simple hysterectomy group. Regarding deaths from any cause within 30 days of surgery, the reported data shows 1 participant in the fertility-sparing group, and 0 participants in each of the other two groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03728881 · results posted 20 July 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03728881) enrolled 620 girls aged 9–14 and 620 women aged 18–25, giving a total of 1,240 participants. The girls received a single dose of one HPV vaccine (Cervarix®), while the women received three doses of a different HPV vaccine (Gardasil-4®). The trial was measuring how much of a specific immune response — called antibodies — each group produced against two strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV16 and HPV18) at 24 and 36 months after the first vaccination. Antibodies are proteins the body makes that can recognise a virus; the higher the level, the stronger the measured immune response. The reported data shows that at the 36-month mark, 538 out of 539 girls in the analysed group had detectable antibodies to HPV16, compared with 366 out of 366 women. For HPV18, the figures were 517 out of 523 girls and 358 out of 373 women. The trial also measured the average antibody level across participants (expressed in international units per millilitre, or IU/mL — a standard way of measuring concentration). For HPV16, the reported average level at 36 months was 21.4 IU/mL in the girls' group and 42.9 IU/mL in the women's group. For HPV18 at 36 months, the reported averages were 8.0 IU/mL (girls) and 7.2 IU/mL (women). At 24 months, the reported HPV16 average was 20.6 IU/mL for girls and 48.8 IU/mL for women; HPV18 figures at 24 months were not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03830866 · results posted 6 March 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03830866) enrolled 770 people in total — 385 in a group receiving durvalumab alongside standard chemoradiotherapy (a combination of chemotherapy and radiation), and 385 in a group receiving a placebo alongside the same standard chemoradiotherapy. The trial was measuring things like how long people went without their cancer growing or spreading (called progression-free survival), how long people lived overall, and how many people's tumours shrank or disappeared during treatment. The reported data shows that for the two main survival measures — progression-free survival and overall survival duration (measured in months) — the figures were listed as "NA" (not available), meaning those particular results were not reported in the submitted data. For overall survival counts, the data shows that 91 people in the durvalumab group and 112 people in the placebo group had died by the time results were recorded, while 294 and 273 people respectively were still alive. For tumour response, the reported data shows that 82.6% of participants in the durvalumab group and 80.5% in the placebo group had their tumour shrink or disappear to some degree. Complete disappearance of tumours was reported in 42.9% of the durvalumab group and 40.3% of the placebo group. It is worth noting that some key figures — including the median length of time before cancer progressed and the median overall survival time in months — were not reported in the submitted data, so no conclusions can be drawn from those particular measures here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01249365 · results posted 16 July 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 199 participants, all of whom received an HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine. Of those, 198 completed the study and 1 did not. The trial was focused on tracking safety-related events — specifically, serious adverse events (unexpected or significant medical occurrences), medically significant conditions (medical issues serious enough to prompt an unplanned doctor or emergency room visit), and potential immune-related disorders, as well as any pregnancies that occurred during the study period. The reported data shows that, out of 199 participants, 6 experienced a serious adverse event of any kind, 2 experienced a serious adverse event that was considered severe enough to prevent normal daily activities, and none were assessed by the investigators as being related to the vaccination. For medically significant conditions, 16 participants reported at least one such event, with 2 being severe enough to interfere with daily activities; again, none were assessed as related to the vaccination. Regarding potential immune-related disorders, 1 participant reported one, and none were considered related to the vaccine. For pregnancies, the reported data shows 1 participant had a pregnancy recorded as a live infant with no apparent birth defect; all other pregnancy outcome categories — including spontaneous abortion, premature birth, stillbirth, and others — recorded zero participants. Several pregnancy outcome categories appear to have had data not reported in the structured results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

See the full Cervical Cancer page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.