Reported trial results for Lymphoma

Every Lymphoma trial Voxsanity tracks that has reported results to a public registry, newest first. These trials have finished, so they are not recruiting. Not medical advice.

167 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

NCT05255601 · results posted 26 June 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05255601) enrolled a total of 5 participants across two groups in what was called "Part A" — 4 people in a "flat dosing" group (where everyone receives the same dose) and 1 person in an "age/weight-based dosing" group (where the dose is adjusted based on the individual). Notably, none of the 5 participants completed the study, and the trial also had a planned "Part B," which never got underway because no participants enrolled in it. The primary outcome the trial was measuring in Part A was the number of participants who experienced "dose-limiting toxicities" — that is, side effects serious enough that they would signal the dose being tested was too high. The reported data shows that zero out of 4 participants in the flat dosing group and zero out of 1 participant in the age/weight-based dosing group met the criteria for a dose-limiting toxicity. Because no one enrolled in Part B, all of the secondary outcomes — which were intended to measure things like serious medical events, deaths, and abnormal laboratory results in that group — have no data reported. It is worth noting that with only 5 participants total and no one completing the study, the reported data is very limited in scope. 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 ↗
NCT04257578 · results posted 25 June 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04257578) enrolled 23 participants, all in the HIV-negative group. A planned HIV-positive group was included in the study design but reported zero participants started or completed the study. The trial was looking at a combination of two treatments — acalabrutinib (a tablet medicine) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (a type of personalised immune cell therapy, sometimes called CAR-T cell therapy) — in people with certain blood cancers. The main thing the trial set out to measure was how often serious side effects occurred, specifically severe immune overreactions (called cytokine release syndrome) and severe effects on the nervous system, within 30 days of receiving the immune cell therapy. The reported data shows that, among the 23 HIV-negative participants, 9 experienced the serious side effects that were being tracked as the primary (main) measure. For secondary measures — additional things the trial was tracking — the reported data shows that 7 participants had a complete response (meaning no detectable sign of disease) following the immune cell therapy, with 4 having a partial response, 1 with stable disease, and 2 with progressive disease. Before receiving the immune cell therapy, a bridging treatment was given, and the response to that was reported as 4 participants with a complete response, 5 with a partial response, 1 with stable disease, and 0 with progressive disease. The reported data also shows that 16 of the 23 participants were alive at the time of data reporting (overall survival), and 15 were alive without their disease progressing (progression-free survival). No results were reported for the HIV-positive group for any measure. It is worth noting that no data was reported for the HIV-positive group at all, so nothing can be said about that arm of the trial. 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 ↗
NCT02997761 · results posted 9 June 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 19 adults with a form of blood cancer called B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (a type of cancer affecting white blood cells). All 19 participants completed the study. The trial was looking at a combination of two medicines — ibrutinib and blinatumomab — and measuring things like how many participants went into remission (meaning signs of the cancer could no longer be detected in standard tests), how long participants survived, and what side effects were recorded. The reported data shows that 9 out of 19 participants achieved what is called a "complete remission" — the primary goal of the trial — meaning their test results met specific medical criteria for the cancer appearing to be gone. When a slightly broader definition of remission was used (including people whose blood cell counts had not fully recovered), 10 out of 19 participants met that threshold. Of those 10, all 10 also had no detectable cancer cells remaining when measured by a sensitive bone marrow test. The reported data also shows that 6 out of 19 participants went on to receive a stem cell or CAR-T cell transplant after the trial treatment. The reported median overall survival — meaning the midpoint survival time across the group — was 12.3 months. Regarding side effects, all 19 participants were reported to have experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence recorded during the trial), though the data as submitted does not break down the nature or severity of those events in detail. 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 ↗
NCT06382194 · results posted 28 April 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved a single group of 5 participants in the intervention arm. Three participants completed the study, while two did not finish. The trial was looking at whether a decision aid (an informational tool to help people make decisions) could influence how safely firearms were stored at home, and also measured things like participants' knowledge about safe storage, how confident they felt making decisions about firearm storage, and how acceptable they found the intervention. The reported data shows that out of the 3 participants who completed the study, 1 showed any improvement in their firearm storage safety rating (measured on a scale from unlocked and loaded, through to removing the firearm from the home entirely). On the knowledge questionnaire — scored from 0 to 8, where higher means better — the reported average change from the start of the study was minus 0.5, meaning scores were slightly lower at follow-up than at the beginning. For the decisional conflict scale — which measures how uncertain someone feels about a decision, scored 0 to 40 where lower is better — the reported average change was 5, indicating scores moved in a less favourable direction on average. All 3 participants who completed the study reported having accessed and watched the decision aid. On the acceptability measure — scored 1 to 5, where higher means more acceptable — the reported average score was 3.83 out of 5. It is worth noting that this was a very small study with only 5 participants, so the reported numbers represent only a handful of individuals. 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 ↗
NCT06360575 · results posted 20 March 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a drug called crizotinib in people with cancer who had a specific genetic change (mutation) in their tumour. Twenty people were enrolled, 18 began the treatment as planned, and 14 were confirmed as both eligible and having the relevant mutation. No participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study — all 20 were listed under "not completed," which likely reflects how the trial ended or how completion was defined rather than meaning everyone dropped out. The reported data shows three main measurements. The primary thing the trial was tracking was the "objective response rate" — meaning the proportion of participants whose tumours showed a measurable shrinkage (either a complete or partial response). Among the 14 assessable participants, the reported figure was approximately 14.3%, meaning roughly 1 in 7 of those evaluable participants had that kind of tumour response. For the secondary measurements, the trial tracked how long participants went without their disease getting worse or dying — called "progression-free survival." The reported data shows that 29% of participants reached the 6-month mark without their disease progressing or dying. The middle point (median) for progression-free survival across the group was reported as 2.0 months, meaning half of participants experienced disease progression or death before 2 months, and half after. 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 ↗
NCT01679119 · results posted 17 March 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01679119) enrolled 129 people in total — 65 in a group receiving a treatment combination called IO-R-CVP and 64 in a group receiving a combination called Gem-R-CVP. The trial was primarily measuring "progression-free survival," which means how long participants went without their condition getting worse or without dying. It also set out to look at a range of other things, including overall response to treatment, how long participants lived overall, side effects, quality of life, and ability to carry out everyday tasks. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — the progression-free survival rate — the IO-R-CVP group had a result of 49.2% and the Gem-R-CVP group had a result of 46.9%. In plain terms, this percentage represents the proportion of participants in each group who had not experienced disease progression or death by a set point in time. For all of the secondary outcome measures — including overall response rate, overall survival, treatment side effects, quality of life, and daily living activities — no numerical results were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. 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 ↗
NCT04282018 · results posted 20 February 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04282018) enrolled a total of 96 participants across multiple groups. The trial was testing an investigational drug called BGB-10188, either on its own or combined with other medicines (zanubrutinib or tislelizumab), in people with certain blood cancers or solid tumours. The study was structured in several parts: Part A tested BGB-10188 alone at increasing doses in people with blood cancers; Part B tested it combined with zanubrutinib; Parts D and E tested it combined with tislelizumab in people with solid tumours. A key goal was to find the best dose to carry forward, and to measure how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "overall response rate," or ORR — meaning the proportion of people whose cancer showed a meaningful reduction). The reported data shows that for Parts A and B, the trial was not able to settle on a single recommended dose for BGB-10188 alone or in combination with zanubrutinib, because not all planned dose groups were filled and not enough information was gathered. For the combination with tislelizumab (Parts D and E), the reported data indicates that two doses — 160 mg and 320 mg — were identified as the doses to take forward into the expansion phase. In the expansion phase (Part E), the reported ORR was 0.0% in both the 160 mg and 320 mg groups combined with tislelizumab, meaning that, based on the criteria used, no participants in those groups were recorded as having a complete or partial tumour response. For the blood cancer groups in Parts A and B, the reported ORR figures ranged from 20% (in the 120 mg alone group) up to 100% (in the zanubrutinib combination group), though these groups were small in size. Regarding unwanted health events during the trial, the reported data shows that adverse events (unexpected or unwanted health changes) were recorded across all groups, though the data as submitted does not include the full breakdown for all 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 ↗
NCT06509477 · results posted 3 February 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 104 people in total — 52 in each group. It was a comparison study looking at two dermal fillers (gel injections used to soften facial lines): one called Lunaphil Ultra and the other called Juvederm Ultra 4®. The main thing being measured was how much the severity of nasolabial folds — the lines that run from the sides of the nose to the corners of the mouth — changed after treatment, using a standard 1-to-5 scoring scale (where 1 means no visible fold and 5 means extreme folds). By the end of the study, 51 participants in the Lunaphil Ultra group and 46 in the Juvederm Ultra 4® group completed the trial. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome, the average change in fold severity score from the starting point was −0.80 for the Lunaphil Ultra group and −0.81 for the Juvederm Ultra 4® group at one time point, and −0.73 and −0.74 respectively at a second time point — meaning both groups showed a similar reduction in score over time. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that 66 participants in each group were recorded by their treating doctor as having an improved result on a separate 1-to-5 global improvement scale. A total of 43 treated fold sites (across both groups combined, as the data was not reported separately) maintained at least a 1-point improvement in severity score. The average volume of filler injected to reach the desired result was 0.90 mL for Lunaphil Ultra and 0.88 mL for Juvederm Ultra 4®. Additionally, 3 participants in the Lunaphil Ultra group and 5 in the Juvederm Ultra 4® group had adverse events (unwanted reactions) recorded over the 24-week follow-up period; further detail on the nature of those events was not included 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 ↗
NCT03642626 · results posted 23 January 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled a total of 150 people across seven separate groups, each receiving a different CAR-T cell therapy (a type of treatment where a person's own immune cells are modified in a laboratory and given back to them) for a different blood cancer. The groups were: 26 people with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) receiving Kymriah (Arm A); 44 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) receiving Yescarta (Arm B); 30 with DLBCL receiving Kymriah (Arm C); 7 with mantle cell lymphoma receiving Tecartus (Arm D); 13 with large B-cell lymphoma receiving Breyanzi (Arm E); 20 with multiple myeloma receiving Abecma (Arm F); and 10 with ALL receiving Tecartus (Arm G). All 150 participants who started the trial were recorded as having completed it. The reported data shows the following for the main (primary) outcomes. For overall response rate — meaning the percentage of participants whose cancer showed either a complete or partial response to treatment — the figures were: 77.3% in the Yescarta/DLBCL group (Arm B), 61.3% in the Kymriah/DLBCL group (Arm C), 100% in the Tecartus/mantle cell lymphoma group (Arm D), 69.2% in the Breyanzi/large B-cell lymphoma group (Arm E), and 35% in the Abecma/multiple myeloma group (Arm F). A separate primary measure looked at the percentage of participants who achieved a complete response with no detectable cancer cells remaining (called MRD-negative complete response): this was reported as 88.5% in the Kymriah/ALL group (Arm A) and 100% in the Breyanzi group (Arm E). The reported data also shows results for secondary (additional) outcomes that were tracked. One of these was the percentage of participants who developed a severe (grade 3 or 4) neurological side effect known as ICANS (immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome — in plain terms, a serious reaction affecting the brain and nervous system): the figures ranged from 0% in Arm E (Breyanzi) to 42.8% in Arm D (Tecartus/mantle cell lymphoma), with other arms falling in between. The trial also tracked deaths considered related to the treatment itself (rather than to the disease): this was reported as 0% in most arms, with 2.3% reported in the Yescarta/DLBCL group (Arm B) in one reporting instance, and a separate set of figures showing 7% for Arm B, 14% for Arm D, and 15% for Arm E (it is noted that this outcome appears to have been submitted more than once with differing numbers, and the reason for the discrepancy was not explained in the data provided). 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 ↗
NCT04035434 · results posted 24 October 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04035434) tested an experimental treatment called CTX110 — a type of immune cell therapy — in people with two types of blood cancers: non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and B cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B cell ALL). The trial ran in two stages: a dose-finding stage (Phase 1) to test different amounts of the treatment, and a larger expansion stage (Phase 2). Across all groups and dose levels, a total of 59 participants took part in the dose-finding stage and 31 in the expansion stage. The trial measured things like how many participants had serious side effects at each dose, how many showed a measurable response to the treatment, and how long those responses and survival lasted. The reported data shows that in the dose-finding stage, only 1 out of the 59 participants across all NHL and ALL groups experienced what the trial defined as a "dose-limiting toxicity" — meaning a serious side effect severe enough to potentially limit how much of the treatment could be given. For the response to treatment, the reported data shows that in the expansion stage, 60.9% of NHL participants in the Phase 1 group and 75.0% in the Phase 2 group showed an objective response (meaning their cancer showed a measurable reduction or disappearance on scans). For B cell ALL participants in the dose-finding stage, the reported objective response rates were 25.0% at the lowest dose, 40.0% at the middle dose, and 85.7% at the highest dose tested. The reported data also shows figures for how long responses and survival lasted in NHL participants across different dose groups. The median duration of response (how long a measurable response lasted) ranged from approximately 1 to 9.2 months across the dose groups where data was reported, with one group recorded as "not reached" at the time of data collection. Median progression-free survival (the time before the cancer worsened or a participant died) ranged from approximately 0.9 to 2.9 months across groups, and median overall survival ranged from approximately 5 to 37.2 months, though one group's figure was also listed as not reached. 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 ↗
NCT06018129 · results posted 23 September 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT06018129) enrolled 9 people in total — 3 in each of three dosing groups testing a treatment called GEN3017. Participants had either classical Hodgkin lymphoma or T-cell lymphoma, two types of blood cancer. The trial was in an early dose-finding stage, meaning its main goal was to test different dose combinations (varying "priming" and "full" doses) and track certain unwanted effects, rather than to measure whether the treatment reduced cancer. No participants completed the study as defined by the trial protocol — all 9 were recorded as "not completed." The reported data shows that for the primary outcomes, the number of participants who experienced a "dose-limiting toxicity" (a serious unwanted reaction used to judge whether a dose is too high) varied by group. In the classical Hodgkin lymphoma group receiving the high priming and high full dose, 2 out of 3 participants had a dose-limiting toxicity recorded, while 0 out of the remaining groups had one reported. For adverse events (any unwanted medical occurrence during the trial), the reported data shows that 1 of 1 classical Hodgkin lymphoma participant in the medium/low dose group had an adverse event, all 3 in the classical Hodgkin lymphoma high dose group had one, 2 of 2 T-cell lymphoma participants in the medium/low dose group had one, and all 3 in the T-cell lymphoma low/high dose group had one. For the secondary outcomes measuring how much of GEN3017 was in participants' blood and how quickly it peaked, some figures were reported across groups, but the trough concentration and total drug exposure over time (AUC) data were not reported in the submitted 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 ↗
NCT01996865 · results posted 10 July 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01996865) enrolled 503 people in an initial "induction" phase, where everyone received a combination of two medicines — lenalidomide and rituximab. Of those, 500 were actually treated, and 284 completed that phase. Participants who responded well enough were then randomly assigned to one of two maintenance (ongoing treatment) groups: 135 people continued on lenalidomide plus rituximab (Arm A), and 132 people received rituximab alone (Arm B). The trial's main goal was to measure how long people went without their condition getting worse (called "progression-free survival"), and it also tracked a number of secondary measures including overall survival, response rates, and how long responses lasted. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of progression-free survival, people in Arm A (lenalidomide plus rituximab) had a median time of around 263 weeks before their condition progressed or they died, compared with around 229 weeks in Arm B (rituximab alone). For overall survival — how long people lived — the figures were reported as "not available" for both groups, meaning those numbers were not provided in the submitted data. On secondary measures, the reported data shows that 20% of Arm A participants and 11.4% of Arm B participants had an improvement in their level of response during the maintenance phase. The proportion of participants with at least a partial response was 85.2% in Arm A and 79.5% in Arm B, while complete response rates were 60.7% and 58.3% respectively. For duration of response — how long a response lasted — the reported median was approximately 268 weeks in Arm A and 306 weeks in Arm B. 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 ↗
NCT00001379 · results posted 19 June 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 94 people in total across four groups. The largest group — 60 people — received a treatment called interferon first, while 28 people received a combination chemotherapy-and-immunotherapy regimen (known in the trial as EPOCH-R) first. Five people were enrolled but not treated, and one person received a different combination of rituximab and radiation only. The trial was primarily measuring how many people responded to treatment (meaning their disease shrank or disappeared), and how long people went without their disease getting worse. The reported data shows that, for the overall response rate (the percentage of people whose disease shrank by a meaningful amount), roughly half of participants in each group showed a response. Specifically, around 53% of those who started on interferon and around 52% of those who started on EPOCH-R showed a complete or partial response. Among those who switched treatments after their initial therapy, the reported response rates were approximately 57% and 50% respectively. For progression-free survival — the length of time before the disease worsened or returned — the reported median (the midpoint value, where half did better and half did worse) was about 1.01 years for those who started on interferon and 0.69 years for those who started on EPOCH-R. Those who crossed over to the other treatment had reported median progression-free survival figures of 0.23 and 0.53 years. The reported data shows that for overall survival — the time from treatment start until death or last known contact — the median figures were approximately 12.2 years for the initial interferon group, 9.8 years for the initial EPOCH-R group, 8.4 years for those who crossed over to EPOCH-R, and 12.1 years for those who crossed over to interferon. Adverse events (unwanted medical occurrences) were recorded for 57 of the 60 people in the initial interferon group and for all 28 people in the initial EPOCH-R group, though the data as reported does not break these down further into types or severity 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 ↗
NCT03817320 · results posted 17 June 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03817320) looked at a drug called ixazomib given alongside chemotherapy to people with a type of blood cancer. The trial was run in two stages: the first stage tested different doses to find a safe starting point for the second stage, and the second stage looked at how many participants responded to treatment at the chosen dose. In total, 24 people were enrolled across the different groups — 3 in the first dose level of the main group (Stratum A), 20 in the second (higher) dose level of that group, and 1 person in a separate smaller group (Stratum B). No participants were enrolled in the lower "dose level -1" group. The reported data shows that during the first stage of the trial, none of the participants at either of the two tested dose levels experienced what researchers called a "dose limiting toxicity" — meaning no one in those groups hit the pre-set threshold of serious side effects during the first block of treatment that would have required lowering the dose further. Based on this, the higher dose (Dose Level 2) was selected as the recommended dose to use in the second stage. For the second stage, the reported data shows that out of the participants treated at that recommended dose, 10 people achieved the target response — a deep type of remission where very little sign of disease could be detected — after the first block of chemotherapy. 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 ↗
NCT00001337 · results posted 12 June 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 348 people in total — 235 received a chemotherapy combination called EPOCH-R (which includes five drugs: etoposide, doxorubicin, prednisone, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab), 112 received EPOCH without rituximab, and 1 person was enrolled but did not receive any treatment. The trial was mainly measuring how well each treatment combination reduced signs of lymphoma (a type of blood cancer), and how long participants went without their disease getting worse. The reported data shows that, for the main goal of "overall response" (meaning the cancer either disappeared completely or shrank by at least half for at least one month), 216 out of 235 participants in the EPOCH-R group and 94 out of 112 in the EPOCH-alone group met this measure. For the second main goal — tracking how many participants went without their disease progressing — the reported data shows 73 out of 235 in the EPOCH-R group and 41 out of 112 in the EPOCH-alone group experienced disease progression or were counted in this measure. Regarding side effects that led people to stop treatment, the reported data shows a proportion of 0.03 (roughly 3 in 100) in the EPOCH-R group and 0.04 (roughly 4 in 100) in the EPOCH-alone group discontinued due to adverse events. The reported data also shows that adverse events of any kind (serious or non-serious) were recorded for all 235 participants in the EPOCH-R group and all 112 in the EPOCH-alone group, though no further breakdown of those events was provided in the submitted 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT02303821 · results posted 4 June 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02303821) enrolled 141 participants across eight groups. The trial was testing carfilzomib — a medicine given at different doses — in combination with other treatments for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (a type of blood cancer). The study had two parts: a Phase 1b section (35 participants across six smaller groups) that tested different dose levels to examine how the drug behaved in the body, and a Phase 2 section (106 participants split into a B-cell group of 62 and a T-cell group of 44) that looked at response rates and side effects at the highest dose tested. The reported data shows that in the Phase 1b dose-finding part, the peak level of carfilzomib measured in participants' blood (the highest concentration recorded after a dose) ranged from around 445 ng/mL in one lower-dose group up to 11,200 ng/mL in the highest-dose group. The proportion of Phase 1b participants whose leukaemia showed no detectable cancer cells in the bone marrow by the end of the initial treatment cycle ranged from 20% to 40% depending on the dose group. The proportion who reached very low levels of remaining cancer cells (a measure called minimal residual disease) was reported as 0% in most groups, with 14.3% and 25% recorded in two of the mid-range dose groups. The reported data shows that in the Phase 2 part, all 61 B-cell participants and all 44 T-cell participants who received the study drug experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (an unwanted medical event that occurred during or after treatment). Of those, 50 B-cell and 39 T-cell participants experienced events considered related to the study drugs, and 15 B-cell and 3 T-cell participants experienced serious adverse events. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page
NCT00945724 · results posted 30 May 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 54 people, all of whom received a combination treatment referred to as R-CHOP, Depocyte, and Methotrexate — three medicines used together as part of the study regimen. Of the 54 who started, 45 completed the trial and 9 did not finish. The trial was looking at how many people stopped treatment early due to unwanted side effects, and also tracking how participants fared over a five-year period in terms of their disease progressing or returning. The reported data shows that the primary thing being measured was the number of people who withdrew from treatment because of adverse events (unwanted or harmful reactions). Across the three treatment comparisons reported, 6 people withdrew from the main R-CHOP, Depocyte, and Methotrexate group, 3 withdrew from an R-CHOP plus Liposomal Cytarabine group, and 3 withdrew from a High-Dose Methotrexate group. For the five-year follow-up results, the reported data shows that 91% of participants in the main treatment group were free from their disease getting worse after five years (known as "progression-free survival"), 92% were reported as still alive at the five-year mark, and 6% of participants who had gone into remission (meaning their disease had responded to treatment) experienced their disease coming back or progressing over that same period. 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 ↗
NCT02953509 · results posted 29 May 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02953509) enrolled a total of 178 participants across ten groups. It was a two-phase study testing different doses of a drug called magrolimab, combined with rituximab (an existing cancer medicine), and in some groups also with two chemotherapy medicines (gemcitabine and oxaliplatin), in people with certain types of blood cancers called lymphomas. The earlier phase (Phase 1b) was designed to look at how often serious, treatment-related side effects called "dose-limiting toxicities" occurred — meaning unwanted reactions severe enough to potentially stop further dosing. The later phase (Phase 2) focused on measuring how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, which is called the "objective response rate." The reported data shows that in the Phase 1b part of the trial, 0% of participants in the lowest-dose antibody group experienced a dose-limiting toxicity, while roughly 17% did in the 20 mg/kg group, about 15% in the 30 mg/kg group, and roughly 17% in the 45 mg/kg group. In the groups that also received chemotherapy, 0% in the 30 mg/kg group and about 17% in the 45 mg/kg group experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. Across all groups, between 96% and 100% of participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (that is, any unwanted sign or symptom that appeared after starting the study drugs). Regarding tumour response, the reported objective response rates varied widely by dose and cancer type — for example, ranging from 0% in some lower-dose groups up to about 71% in one of the chemotherapy combination groups — though some individual subgroup figures were not reported in the submitted data. For the pharmacokinetic measures (how the drug moves through the body over time), most values were listed as not available in the submitted data, with only limited figures reported for 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT06138145 · results posted 18 April 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 125 people across four groups. The study was looking at whether different ways of asking people to sign up for a paediatric (children's health) clinical trials registry — a database of people willing to be contacted about future research studies — had any effect on their decision to enrol. The four groups were: a Control group, a Generic group, an Appeal group, and an "Ink Pen (no) Incentive" group, which appears to have involved offering a small gift (a pen) as part of the invitation approach. The reported data shows that across all four groups, nearly all participants who started the study also completed it — 29 out of 29 in the Control group, 30 out of 30 in the Generic group, 33 out of 34 in the Appeal group, and 32 out of 32 in the Ink Pen group. For the primary outcome — the number of participants who decided to enrol in the registry — the reported figures were 29 in the Control group, 30 in the Generic group, 34 in the Appeal group, and 32 in the Ink Pen group. It is worth noting that these enrolment numbers appear to match (or closely match) the number of participants who started in each group, though no further breakdown or comparison between groups was included in the submitted data. No secondary outcome measures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those results were not reported. 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 ↗
NCT03277729 · results posted 16 April 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 50 people in total across five groups, each receiving a different dose level of an experimental cell-based treatment called CD20 CAR T cells. The trial was primarily measuring whether any of the doses caused what are called "dose-limiting toxicities" — meaning serious side effects severe enough to limit how much of the treatment could be given. Participants were spread across the five dose groups, with 1, 8, 4, 6, and 31 people in each group respectively. The reported data shows that across all five dose groups, zero participants out of those evaluated were recorded as experiencing a dose-limiting toxicity. This was the main thing the trial set out to measure. The trial also planned to measure other things, including whether participants achieved complete remission (meaning no detectable disease), how long people lived without their disease getting worse (progression-free survival), how long people survived overall, and the general occurrence of any side effects — however, no numerical results for any of these secondary measures were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. It is also worth noting that while 50 people started the trial, only 27 were recorded as completing it, and the reasons for the others not completing were not detailed 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 ↗
NCT05597085 · results posted 4 February 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 32 participants, all of whom completed the study. Every participant received a treatment called Inotuzumab Ozogamicin (also referred to as InO). The trial was measuring how many participants with a type of blood cancer (acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) reached a state called "complete remission" (CR) — meaning no detectable cancer in the bone marrow and blood counts returning to normal levels — or a similar state called "complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery" (CRi), where the bone marrow also cleared but blood counts did not fully recover. The study also looked at these responses according to how many previous treatments participants had received and how much cancer was present at the start. The reported data shows that out of 32 participants, 19 reached CR or CRi. When broken down by prior treatment history, 6 participants had received one previous round of salvage therapy (treatment tried after standard chemotherapy had not worked), 11 had received two previous rounds, and 2 had received three or more. Looking at disease burden (how much cancer was present in the bone marrow at the start), 10 participants with lower disease burden and 9 with higher disease burden reached CR or CRi. For a secondary measure, researchers also tracked something called MRD negativity — a very sensitive test checking whether any tiny traces of cancer cells remained in the bone marrow. Among those who had already reached CR or CRi, the reported data shows 17 participants tested MRD negative and 1 did not. Broken down by prior treatment lines, 5, 11, and 2 participants achieved MRD negativity after one, two, and three or more prior salvage therapies respectively. By disease burden, 10 with lower and 8 with higher disease burden achieved MRD negativity. 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 ↗
NCT03331341 · results posted 9 January 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03331341) enrolled 50 participants, all of whom were placed in a single treatment group receiving a combination of four medicines known as APVD (adriamycin, pembrolizumab, vinblastine, and dacarbazine). All 50 participants who started the trial also completed it. The trial was measuring two main things: first, how many people could get through two rounds (cycles) of treatment without needing a significant delay to their dosing schedule; and second, how many people remained free of certain key events — such as their disease getting worse, needing further chemotherapy, or dying — at the one-year mark. The reported data shows that, for the first main measure, 30 out of 50 participants completed two cycles of treatment without experiencing a dose delay of more than three weeks. For the second main measure, 49 out of 50 participants were reported as being "event free" at one year, meaning they had not experienced progression, a confirmed return of disease, a switch to a different chemotherapy, or death within that timeframe. The trial also tracked a secondary measure using a specialised scan (called a PET scan) after two treatment cycles, which rated each participant on a five-point scale to assess how active any remaining disease appeared. The reported data shows that 30 out of 50 participants received a score indicating lower scan activity (a score of 1 to 3 on that scale) after the two cycles. 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 ↗
NCT02626455 · results posted 11 December 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02626455) enrolled a total of 551 participants across two stages. The first stage — a safety run-in (SRI) — included 27 people who were given the drug copanlisib combined with one of two chemotherapy regimens (called R-B or R-CHOP) at different dose levels, to look at whether certain serious side effects occurred early in treatment. The second, larger stage was a randomised Phase 3 trial involving 524 people, split evenly: 262 received copanlisib combined with chemotherapy (R-B or R-CHOP), and 262 received a placebo (a dummy treatment) combined with the same chemotherapy. The Phase 3 stage was measuring how long participants went without their disease getting worse — known as progression-free survival. The reported data shows that in the safety run-in, none of the participants in four of the five dose groups experienced what the trial defined as a "dose-limiting toxicity" (a serious side effect severe enough to limit the dose) during the first treatment cycle. In the fifth group — Japanese participants receiving the 60 mg dose of copanlisib with R-B — the reported rate was 16.7% (roughly 1 in 6 participants in that small group). For the best overall response in the SRI stage, the reported percentages of participants showing any response ranged from 16.7% to 71.4% depending on the group, though these groups were very small (3 to 7 people each). In the Phase 3 stage, the reported median progression-free survival — that is, the midpoint time before disease progression or death — was 32.9 months for the copanlisib group and 33.3 months for the placebo group. The reported tumour response rate was 85.5% in the copanlisib group and 86.6% in the placebo group, whether assessed by an independent review panel or by the treating investigators. 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 ↗
NCT02702492 · results posted 25 November 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02702492) tested an investigational drug called KPT-9274 in people with advanced solid tumours or blood cancers. The trial was divided into three parts: Part A tested KPT-9274 on its own at different doses (10 mg up to 40 mg); Part B tested KPT-9274 combined with a vitamin called niacin; and Part C tested KPT-9274 combined with another drug called nivolumab. In total, 60 participants started the trial across all groups and dose levels. One of the main things the trial was looking at was how the body tolerated the drug — specifically, whether serious unwanted reactions (called "dose-limiting toxicities," or DLTs) occurred early in treatment, and what the highest dose was that participants could tolerate. The reported data shows that, across most dose groups, zero DLTs were recorded in the first 28 days of treatment. The exceptions were: 1 DLT reported among the 7 participants taking KPT-9274 40 mg alone (Part A), and 2 DLTs reported among the 7 participants taking KPT-9274 80 mg combined with niacin (Part B). Regarding the maximum tolerated dose — that is, the highest dose considered tolerable — the data submitted shows "not available" (NA) for all groups, meaning a specific figure was not reported for this measure. The reported data also shows the number of participants who experienced more serious unwanted reactions (graded as severe or life-threatening), serious adverse events, or reactions that led them to stop treatment: these ranged from 1 participant in the lowest-dose group up to 10 participants in the KPT-9274 60 mg plus niacin group. For three other planned outcome measures — the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank or disappeared (overall response rate), the proportion whose disease was controlled, and how long participants went without their disease getting worse (progression-free survival) — no data was reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. 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 ↗
NCT02406092 · results posted 21 November 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02406092) enrolled 139 people across two groups: 105 participants with a type of blood cancer called diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 34 participants with follicular lymphoma (FL). The trial was looking at a under-the-skin (subcutaneous) form of a medicine called rituximab. The main thing being measured was how many participants had a reaction linked to receiving the injection within 24 hours of each dose — this included things like injection-site reactions or other related symptoms. A number of secondary measures were also tracked, including how long participants went without their disease getting worse, and how long they survived overall. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — reactions within 24 hours of the injection — the figures were low across both groups, though the exact numbers varied depending on how the reactions were counted. Across the overall group of participants, the reported rate of these administration-associated reactions ranged from around 0.8% to 4.9% depending on the specific category being measured. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that in the FL group, the median time before disease progression or the need for a different treatment (event-free survival) was reported as approximately 53.8 months from the first intravenous dose and 45.5 months from the first under-the-skin dose. Similar figures were reported for progression-free survival in the FL group. In the DLBCL group, overall survival was reported at a median of 51.4 months. The proportion of participants who achieved a complete response (meaning no detectable sign of disease) after their initial treatment course was reported as 74.2% in the DLBCL group, 76.5% in the FL group, and 74.5% overall. Disease-free survival figures were not reported in the submitted data. It is worth noting that some figures — particularly for event-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival — were listed as "not available" for certain groups, meaning those results were not reported in the submitted data for those subgroups. 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 ↗
NCT03573700 · results posted 30 October 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a cell-based treatment called SJCAR19 for children and young people aged 21 and under who had a type of blood cancer (acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, or ALL) that had come back or had not responded to earlier treatment. A total of 24 participants took part — 6 in the first dosing group and 18 in a second, higher dosing group. The trial had two aims: first, to find the highest dose that could be given without causing serious reactions (called the "maximum tolerated dose"), and second, to measure how many participants showed a complete response, meaning no detectable cancer was found after treatment. The reported data shows that out of all 24 participants, 2 experienced what are called "dose-limiting toxicities" — that is, serious reactions that set the upper boundary for how much of the treatment could be given. One of these occurred in the lower-dose group and one in the higher-dose group. The higher-dose level was identified as the maximum tolerated dose. Regarding complete responses, the reported data shows that 20 out of 24 participants overall showed a complete response — 15 from the higher-dose group and 5 from the lower-dose group. An additional 4 participants (3 from the higher-dose group and 1 from the lower-dose group) also appear listed under the complete response measure, though the distinction between these two sets of numbers was not fully explained in the data as reported. 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 ↗
NCT05315713 · results posted 4 October 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a combination of two medicines — mosunetuzumab (given as an injection under the skin) and tiragolumab (given through a drip into a vein) — in people with a type of blood cancer. The trial was designed in two phases; only the first phase (Phase 1b) appears to have produced reported results. Eight people took part in this phase, and none were recorded as having completed the study — the data shows all eight did not complete it, though the reasons for this were not detailed in the structured results. The reported data shows that across the Phase 1b group, adverse events (that is, any unwanted medical occurrences that happened during the trial) were recorded in 100% of participants — meaning all eight people experienced at least one adverse event. Separately, the trial measured how many participants' cancer responded to the treatment combination: 62.5% of participants (roughly 5 out of 8) were reported to have shown either a complete or partial response (meaning their cancer either disappeared or shrank according to scans), and 37.5% (roughly 3 out of 8) were reported to have shown a complete response specifically. The reported data for how long those responses lasted was listed as "not available," meaning that figure was not reported. The Phase 2 part of the trial — which had its own separate response-rate goal — also returned no reported measurements 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 ↗
NCT04038359 · results posted 19 September 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04038359) looked at a medicine called duvelisib, tested in two different dosing schedules — one group received continuous and intermittent dosing, and the other received intermittent dosing only. A total of 103 people started the trial (52 in the first group and 51 in the second), and all but one person in each group received at least one dose of the study drug. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants showed a measurable reduction in their disease, defined as either their disease disappearing completely or partially shrinking, based on established medical criteria. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure (the proportion of participants whose disease completely or partially responded), 65.3% in the continuous and intermittent dosing group and 52.9% in the intermittent-only group met that threshold under one set of assessment criteria, with very similar figures under a second set of criteria (62.2% and 54.3% respectively). For secondary measures, the reported data shows that the median time before the disease progressed or death occurred (called progression-free survival) was 16.0 months in the first group and 23.0 months in the second. Among those whose disease did respond, the reported duration of that response was a median of 21.4 months in the first group and 32.2 months in the second. For overall survival (how long participants lived), the data was not reported as a usable number — it was listed as "not available," which typically means not enough events had occurred to calculate a final figure. The reported rate of a meaningful reduction in lymph node size was 64.3% in the first group and 60.9% in the second. 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 ↗
NCT00268853 · results posted 30 May 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 124 people in total — 61 in a group receiving a treatment called CPOP-R and 63 in a group receiving CHOP-R. These are two different chemotherapy-based treatment combinations. The trial was measuring how well each combination worked at reducing cancer, how long people lived, and how long it took before the disease progressed or treatment stopped working. Of the 124 who started, 45 in the CPOP-R group and 44 in the CHOP-R group completed the study. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome of response rate, 44 out of 61 participants in the CPOP-R group and 50 out of 63 in the CHOP-R group showed a response (made up of 24 complete and 20 partial responses in CPOP-R, and 28 complete and 22 partial responses in CHOP-R). For the secondary outcomes, the overall number of deaths recorded was 18 in the CPOP-R group and 9 in the CHOP-R group. For progression-free survival — the length of time before the disease worsened or treatment changed — the reported median (middle value) was 17.3 months for the CHOP-R group; the figure for the CPOP-R group was not reported in the data. The overall objective response rate (a broader measure of response) was reported as 50 participants in the CPOP-R group and 55 in the CHOP-R group. Time to treatment failure — how long before treatment stopped working or was changed — was reported as 30.3 months for CPOP-R and 40.1 months for CHOP-R. 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 ↗
NCT03332017 · results posted 30 April 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03332017) enrolled 217 people with a type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma — 72 in a group receiving obinutuzumab alone, and 145 in a group receiving zanubrutinib combined with obinutuzumab. The trial was primarily measuring the "overall response rate" — that is, the proportion of participants whose cancer showed a meaningful shrinkage or disappearance (called a complete or partial response) as judged by an independent review panel. The reported data shows that, based on independent central review, 45.8% of participants in the obinutuzumab-only group and 68.3% in the combination group had a response. When the treating doctors made the same assessment themselves, the figures were 41.7% and 66.2% respectively. For those who did respond, the reported data shows the median duration of that response — meaning the midpoint of how long responses lasted — was approximately 9.2 months in the obinutuzumab-only group and 30.6 months in the combination group, as assessed by the investigators (the independent review panel figures for this measure were not reported). The median time before the disease progressed or death occurred was reported as 11.2 months (obinutuzumab alone) and 27.4 months (combination) by one assessment method, and 5.8 months versus 22.2 months by another. For overall survival — how long participants lived from the start of the trial — the reported data shows the median figure was not yet reached in either group at the time results were submitted. It is also worth noting that 36 participants in the obinutuzumab-only group later crossed over to receive the combination treatment, and no participants were recorded as having formally completed the study in the usual sense. 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 ↗
NCT04524455 · results posted 8 April 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04524455) enrolled 17 people across two groups. Eight participants received blinatumomab combined with a lower dose of AMG 404 (240 mg, called Cohort 1), and nine were enrolled in the higher-dose group (480 mg, called Cohort 2a), though one person in that second group did not end up receiving either treatment. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants experienced certain medical events after starting treatment — specifically, serious reactions that would suggest the dose was too high (called "dose-limiting toxicities"), as well as any unwanted medical events that occurred after the first dose. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcomes, zero participants in either group experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. For unwanted medical events occurring after the first dose, all 8 participants in each group who received treatment experienced at least one such event. The reported data also shows that serious unwanted events occurred in 3 people in Cohort 1 and 4 people in Cohort 2a, and events considered of special interest were recorded in 8 participants in Cohort 1 and 6 in Cohort 2a. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that 37.5% of Cohort 1 participants and 62.5% of Cohort 2a participants achieved a remission (meaning very low levels of disease detected in the bone marrow) by certain criteria. The median duration of those remissions was 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 ↗
NCT03610724 · results posted 19 March 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 34 people, all of whom were in the single treatment group receiving a therapy called tisagenlecleucel. Of those 34, 33 went on to actually receive the treatment, while one met the entry criteria but was not treated. The trial was measuring how well the treatment controlled participants' cancer, how long any response lasted, and how long participants lived — both with and without their disease getting worse. The reported data shows that the main thing the trial was tracking — called the Overall Response Rate — was 32.1%. This means that, out of all participants assessed, roughly 32 in every 100 were recorded as having either a complete or partial reduction in their disease at their best point during the study. For the other measures: the time from first treatment until death, disease worsening, or starting a new cancer treatment (called Event Free Survival) was reported as 2.1 months on average; the time until disease progression or death (Progression Free Survival) was reported as 2.5 months; and the time from first treatment until death from any cause (Overall Survival) was reported as 10.4 months. Two other measures — how long responses lasted in those who did respond, and Relapse Free Survival — were listed in the data but no numeric values were reported for these. It is worth noting that only 14 of the 34 participants completed the full treatment and follow-up phase, with 19 discontinuing before the end. 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 ↗
NCT03207867 · results posted 1 March 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03207867) enrolled a total of 356 participants across multiple groups and three parts of the study. Participants had various types of advanced cancers, including kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, head and neck cancer, bowel cancer, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), melanoma, lung cancer (NSCLC), a type of blood cancer called diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and prostate cancer. The trial was testing different doses of a treatment and different dosing schedules across these cancer types, with the main thing being measured being the "overall response rate" — that is, the percentage of participants whose tumours shrank by a meaningful amount or disappeared entirely during the study period. The reported data shows that the overall response rates varied considerably depending on the cancer type and dose group. In Part 1, among kidney cancer patients who had not previously received similar treatment, 27.3% (160 mg group) and 25.0% (240 mg group) showed a response; for previously treated kidney cancer patients at 240 mg, this figure was 0%. For pancreatic cancer (160 mg) and previously treated head and neck cancer (160 mg), the reported response rate was also 0%. Bladder cancer came in at 7.1%, treatment-naïve head and neck cancer at 13.3%, bowel cancer groups at 0% and 3.4%, TNBC at 10.0%, previously treated melanoma at 0%, and prostate cancer at 0%. For DLBCL, 15.4% of participants in the 160 mg group showed a response. In Part 2, for lung cancer patients, the reported response rates were 9.1% (continuous dosing), 0% (two weeks on/two weeks off), and 10.0% (one week on/one week off). In Part 3, 16.7% of TNBC participants in the continuous 160 mg group showed a response. Notably, no participants in any group were recorded as having "completed" the study under the trial's own completion definition, though the reasons for this are not detailed in the data provided. The reported data also shows a secondary measure using a slightly different assessment method (called iRECIST, designed to account for certain immune-related response patterns), and the figures reported were broadly similar to the primary results, with some minor differences — for example, the treatment-naïve kidney cancer group at 160 mg showed 36.4% under this method compared with 27.3% under the primary method. Results for several other subgroups — including some melanoma, H-N, MSS CRC, and DLBCL groups — were not reported for all outcome measures in the data provided to ClinicalTrials.gov. 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 ↗
NCT03684694 · results posted 6 February 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03684694) tested a combination of two medicines — loncastuximab tesirine and ibrutinib — in people with certain types of blood cancers, including two forms of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The trial ran in two stages. In Phase 1, which aimed to find a suitable dose of the combination, 47 people took part across three different dose levels (60, 75, and 90 micrograms per kilogram). In Phase 2, which looked at how often the treatment produced a complete response (meaning scans showed no detectable cancer), 89 more people took part across three groups based on their cancer type. The reported data shows that in Phase 1, all 47 participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (an unwanted health change that occurred during or shortly after treatment). Serious adverse events — those that were life-threatening, required hospitalisation, or caused significant disability — were reported in 19 out of 37 participants at the lowest dose, none of the 4 participants at the middle dose, and 3 out of 6 at the highest dose. Dose-limiting toxicities (side effects severe enough to limit how much medicine could be given) were reported in 2 out of 6 participants at the highest dose and none at the lower doses. Dose interruptions and reductions were rare across all groups. The reported data shows that in Phase 2, the complete response rate — the proportion of participants whose scans showed no detectable cancer at their best point during treatment — was 27.1% in the non-GCB DLBCL group (49 people), 26.7% in the GCB DLBCL group (30 people), and 90.0% in the MCL group (10 people). No other secondary outcome figures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so further results were not reported there. 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 ↗
NCT03150329 · results posted 1 February 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 52 people in total. Six participants received the lower dose combination (Vorinostat 100mg plus Pembrolizumab 200mg) and 46 received the higher dose combination (Vorinostat 200mg plus Pembrolizumab 200mg). All 52 participants completed the study. The trial was primarily looking at side effects of a certain severity, the highest dose that could be given before side effects became too troublesome (called the Maximum Tolerated Dose), and how many people experienced serious early side effects (called dose-limiting toxicities) during the first two treatment cycles. The reported data shows that in the lower-dose group, 3 out of 6 participants experienced severe side effects (graded 3 to 5 on a standard medical scale, meaning serious to potentially life-threatening), compared with 28 out of 46 in the higher-dose group. One person in each group experienced a dose-limiting toxicity — that is, a side effect serious enough during the early observation period to potentially affect how the dose could be continued. The highest dose level identified as the Maximum Tolerated Dose was reported as 200mg of Vorinostat. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 50% of participants in the lower-dose group and 61% in the higher-dose group had their tumour shrink or disappear (either partially or completely). A complete disappearance of tumour was reported in 17% of the lower-dose group and 35% of the higher-dose group. 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 ↗
NCT03768505 · results posted 1 February 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03768505) enrolled 169 people who had a type of blood cancer — either follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) — that had come back or stopped responding to earlier treatment. All 169 participants received an experimental medicine called zandelisib (also known as ME-401) in an open-label study, meaning everyone knew which treatment they were receiving. The trial was set up to measure how many people's cancer responded to the treatment, how long any response lasted, and how long people lived with or without their disease getting worse. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — the proportion of participants whose cancer showed a response to zandelisib — no numerical results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. Similarly, the data was not reported for several other planned measurements, including how long responses lasted, how many people achieved a complete response (meaning no detectable cancer remaining), how long people went without their disease getting worse, and how long people survived overall. The only number provided relates to side effects: the reported data shows that 162 out of 169 participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, meaning a health problem that appeared or worsened after starting the treatment. No further detail about the nature or severity of those events was included in the submitted results. Because the key outcome numbers were not submitted, it is not possible to describe what the trial found about how the medicine performed against its main goals. The trial records show that none of the 169 participants were counted as having "completed" the study, though the reasons for this are not explained in the data provided. 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 ↗
NCT03560752 · results posted 31 January 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03560752) involved 34 people in total — 17 bone marrow or stem cell donors and 17 recipients (the patients who received a transplant). All 34 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was testing a vaccine called Multi-peptide CMV-modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA), given to both donors and recipients, and was measuring a range of outcomes related to how safely the transplant process proceeded after vaccination. These included how quickly the recipient's white blood cells recovered after the transplant, whether a serious immune reaction called graft-versus-host disease (where donated immune cells attack the recipient's body) occurred, whether any serious unwanted reactions to the vaccine were recorded, and whether any recipients died from causes other than their original disease within the first 100 days. The reported data shows the following numbers for the 17 recipients: zero recipients experienced delayed white blood cell recovery (defined as taking 20 days or more); 2 recipients experienced severe graft-versus-host disease (a serious form of the immune reaction graded III or IV on a standard scale); and zero recipients recorded serious Grade 3–4 unwanted reactions to the vaccine as measured by a standard medical grading system. The reported 100-day non-relapse mortality — meaning death from causes other than the original disease returning — was reported as 0% of evaluable recipients. Among the 17 donors, the reported data shows that 3 donors experienced Grade 2–3 unwanted reactions (moderate to serious on the standard scale). 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 ↗
NCT03959241 · results posted 12 January 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03959241) enrolled 431 adults who were undergoing a stem cell transplant (a procedure where donated blood stem cells replace a patient's own). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups receiving different combinations of medicines to prevent graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) — a condition where the donated cells attack the recipient's body. One group (214 people) received a combination called PTCY/Tacrolimus/MMF, and the other (217 people) received Tacrolimus/Methotrexate. The trial's main goal was to measure how many participants in each group were free from serious GVHD, disease return, or death at one year — a combined measure researchers call "GRFS." The reported data shows that for the primary measure at one year, 52.3% of participants in the PTCY/Tacrolimus/MMF group were free from those events, compared with 35.5% in the Tacrolimus/Methotrexate group. For secondary measures, the reported data shows that by day 100 after transplant, 6.3% of the PTCY group developed severe acute GVHD (grade III–IV), compared with 14.7% in the Tacrolimus/Methotrexate group. Rates of moderate acute GVHD (grade II–IV) were broadly similar between the two groups (53.8% vs 51.9%). For chronic GVHD requiring full immune-suppressing treatment at one year, 21.9% of the PTCY group and 35.1% of the Tacrolimus/Methotrexate group were reported to have developed it. The reported data also shows that for individual organ involvement and other secondary measures, the numbers were broadly comparable between the two groups, with some variation in liver and skin staging figures. It is worth noting that all figures above are as submitted by the trial sponsor to ClinicalTrials.gov, and the trial measured specific outcomes in a specific group of transplant patients under controlled conditions. 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 ↗
NCT01796171 · results posted 10 January 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01796171) tested an experimental treatment called Betalutin (also known as lutetium-lilotomab satetraxetan) in people with a type of blood cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The trial was run in multiple parts and arms, with participants receiving different doses of Betalutin and different pre-treatment approaches — including a pre-dose of lilotomab or rituximab, or no pre-dose at all. In total, 191 people were enrolled across all groups. The trial was measuring, in its early phase, how many people experienced serious side effects linked to the dose (called "dose-limiting toxicities"), and in its later phases, how many participants' tumours showed a measurable response based on scans. The reported data shows the following for the early phase (Part A) dose-safety assessment: of the nine dose groups tested, the number of participants who experienced a dose-limiting toxicity ranged from 0 to 3. Specifically, 0 participants had such events in the 10 MBq/kg with lower-dose lilotomab group; 1 in the 15 MBq/kg with lower-dose lilotomab group; 3 in the 20 MBq/kg with lower-dose lilotomab group; 0 in the 10 MBq/kg with no pre-dose group; 2 in the 15 MBq/kg with no pre-dose group; 1 in the rituximab pre-dose group; 1 in the 15 MBq/kg with higher-dose lilotomab group; 1 in the 20 MBq/kg with higher-dose lilotomab group; and 0 in the 20 MBq/kg with intermediate-dose lilotomab group. For the tumour response part of Phase IIa (Part A), the reported data shows that in the "40/15" dosing group (40 mg lilotomab pre-dose / 15 MBq/kg Betalutin) among participants with follicular lymphoma, 7 participants had a complete response, 5 had a partial response, 3 had stable disease, and 3 had progressive disease. In the "100/20" group (100 mg lilotomab pre-dose / 20 MBq/kg Betalutin), 2 had a complete response, 6 had a partial response, 1 had stable disease, and 0 had progressive disease. For the later confirmatory phase (Part B), the reported overall response (meaning either a complete or partial remission at any point) was: 28 out of the participants in the 40/15 group, 9 out of participants in the 100/20 group, and 2 out of participants in the 40/12.5 group. The total number of participants assessed in each Part B group was not separately specified in the data provided, so response rates as percentages cannot be confirmed from the available figures. 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 ↗
NCT03336333 · results posted 7 November 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03336333) enrolled people with a type of blood cancer called chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) or a closely related condition. Participants were divided into groups: one group of people whose cancer did not have a specific genetic change called del(17p), who were randomly assigned to receive either a drug called zanubrutinib or a combination of two drugs called bendamustine and rituximab (238 and 241 people respectively); and a separate group of 111 people whose cancer did have the del(17p) genetic change, who all received zanubrutinib. The main thing the trial was measuring was "progression-free survival" — that is, how long people went without their cancer getting worse or dying. The reported data shows that for the main outcome measure — progression-free survival in the group without del(17p) — the bendamustine and rituximab group had a reported median (middle value) of 33.7 months. For the zanubrutinib group in that same comparison, the median figure was reported as "NA" (not available), meaning the data had not yet reached a point where a median could be calculated at the time of reporting. For all of the secondary outcomes — including overall response rate, overall survival, and duration of response — no numerical results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures are not available to report 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 ↗
NCT02611323 · results posted 10 October 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02611323) enrolled a total of 134 participants across two types of blood cancer: follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Participants were divided into multiple groups testing different dose combinations of up to three medicines — polatuzumab vedotin, venetoclax, and either obinutuzumab (for FL) or rituximab (for DLBCL). The trial had two main phases: a dose-escalation phase (to find the most appropriate dose) and a dose-expansion phase (testing that chosen dose in a larger group). The trial was measuring, among other things, what proportion of participants showed a complete response (meaning no detectable signs of lymphoma on specialised scans) at the end of treatment, as well as tracking unwanted medical events that occurred during the trial. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of complete response at the end of treatment (assessed by an independent review committee using PET and CT scans), results varied across groups. In the small FL dose-escalation group receiving the highest dose combination (8 participants), 100% were reported as having a complete response. In the larger FL dose-expansion group (41 participants), 51.2% were reported as having a complete response. For the DLBCL dose-escalation group at the highest dose (8 participants), 25% were reported as having a complete response, and in the larger DLBCL dose-expansion group (40 participants), 32.5% were reported as having a complete response. Regarding unwanted medical events, the reported data shows that 100% of participants across all FL groups experienced at least one adverse event (an unintended or unwanted medical occurrence during the study period). In the DLBCL groups, between 87.5% and 100% of participants experienced at least one adverse event. Serious adverse events — defined as those that were life-threatening, required hospitalisation, or caused significant disability — were also recorded across groups, with figures ranging from 0% to 57.1% in the FL groups and 25% to 100% in the DLBCL groups, depending on the dose combination. The trial also reported that the recommended dose for future study was identified as 1.8 mg/kg for polatuzumab vedotin and 800 mg for venetoclax in both cancer types. 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 ↗
NCT01897571 · results posted 4 August 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 400 participants across two phases. The first phase tested different doses of a medicine called tazemetostat to find the right dose to carry forward, while the second phase looked at how many participants with certain types of blood cancer — follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) — showed a measurable reduction in their cancer (either a complete disappearance or a significant shrinkage of tumours). Participants were placed into different groups depending on their cancer type, a specific genetic feature of their cancer (called EZH2 mutation status), and whether they received tazemetostat alone or combined with another medicine called prednisolone. The reported data shows that in Phase 1, the dose selected to carry into Phase 2 was 800 mg taken twice daily. For the Phase 2 results on tumour response, out of those assessed: 34 participants in the follicular lymphoma group with a specific gene mutation (EZH2 mutant) showed a response, 19 did so in the follicular lymphoma group without that mutation (EZH2 wild-type), 30 responded in the DLBCL group receiving tazemetostat alone, and 8 responded in the DLBCL group receiving the combination treatment. The reported data also shows how long those responses lasted on average: approximately 11.3 months for EZH2 mutant FL, 13.0 months for wild-type FL, 5.8 months for DLBCL monotherapy, and 5.7 months for DLBCL combination therapy. The reported data also includes how long participants went without their disease progressing (called progression-free survival): approximately 13.8 months for EZH2 mutant FL, 11.1 months for wild-type FL, 1.9 months for DLBCL monotherapy, and 1.8 months for DLBCL combination therapy. These figures represent the midpoint (median) time observed across participants in each group, meaning half experienced longer and half experienced shorter periods before progression or death. 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 ↗
NCT04806100 · results posted 15 June 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04806100) enrolled 20 participants in total, spread across six groups that each tested three ankle brace conditions in a different order. All 20 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring how wearing two different ankle-foot orthoses (braces) — one described as moderately stiff ("Compliant") and one described as very stiff ("Stiff") — affected the way the ankle joint moves and produces force during walking, compared with wearing no brace at all. Participants were tested in each condition, and researchers recorded ankle stiffness, ankle power, ankle pushing force, pain levels, and how comfortable and smooth each brace felt. The reported data shows the following for the three main (primary) measurements taken during walking: For ankle joint stiffness (a measure of how much the ankle resists bending, reported in units called Nm/degree), the no-brace condition recorded 0.62, the moderately stiff brace recorded 0.97, and the very stiff brace recorded 0.98. For ankle push-off power (how much energy the ankle produces to propel the body forward, reported per kilogram of body weight), the no-brace condition recorded 2.8 W/kg, the moderately stiff brace recorded 2.2 W/kg, and the very stiff brace recorded 2.1 W/kg. For peak ankle pushing force (normalised to body weight), all three conditions recorded similar values: 1.4 Nm/kg with no brace, and 1.3 Nm/kg for both braces. The reported data for the secondary (additional) measurements shows that pain scores — rated on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable) — were very low across all conditions: 0.1 with no brace, and 0.2 for both braces. When participants rated how comfortable each brace felt on a scale of 0 to 10, the moderately stiff brace scored 7.5 and the very stiff brace scored 8.0. For smoothness of movement, both braces scored similarly — 7.8 for the moderately stiff brace and 7.7 for the very stiff brace. 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 ↗
NCT01378871 · results posted 9 June 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01378871) enrolled just one participant in the "Antibody Therapy" group, who received a treatment called Imtox-25. The trial was designed as a Phase II study looking at the use of Imtox-25 in people with a type of blood cancer called ATL (Adult T-cell Leukaemia/Lymphoma) that had come back or stopped responding to previous treatment. The single participant who started the trial also completed it. The reported data shows that no numerical results were submitted for either the primary or secondary outcome measures. The primary outcome was intended to measure whether the treatment produced any anti-tumour response in participants. The secondary outcomes were intended to look at side effects, measure certain antibody levels in the blood (which can indicate how the body reacts to a mouse-derived treatment), and check whether a specific marker on cancer cells — called CD25 — changed after treatment. However, no measurement data for any of these outcomes was reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, so it is not possible to describe what the numbers showed. Given that only one person participated and no outcome measurements were submitted, the reported data is too limited to draw any meaningful conclusions about the results of this trial. If any findings exist beyond what was submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, they were not included in the publicly available record. 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 ↗
NCT03436862 · results posted 9 June 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03436862) enrolled 37 people, all of whom received a treatment called nivolumab as a maintenance therapy — meaning it was given after initial treatment to try to keep the disease from returning. The trial had one group only. Of the 37 who started, 31 completed the study and 6 did not. The trial was primarily looking at how many participants experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (that is, unwanted health changes that appeared or worsened after starting the study drug) as a way of measuring safety and tolerability of nivolumab in this setting. The reported data shows that 33 out of 37 participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event during the study. It is important to note that this number tells us how many people had such events recorded — it does not tell us how serious those events were or how they compared to what might be expected without treatment. For the secondary outcome — a measure called progression-free survival at 12 months, which tracks the proportion of participants who were alive and whose condition had not worsened at that point — the data was not reported (the value was listed as "NA" in the submitted 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 ↗
NCT04101331 · results posted 5 June 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04101331) enrolled 108 participants, all in a single group called Cohort A. The trial was looking at how people with a type of blood cancer (malignant lymphoma) responded to the treatment being studied. The main thing the trial was measuring was the proportion of participants whose cancer showed a response — meaning it either shrank significantly (called a "partial response") or could no longer be detected on scans (called a "complete response") — as assessed using a specialised type of body scan called a PET-CT. It is worth noting that only 3 of the 108 participants were recorded as having completed the study, while 105 did not complete it; the reasons were not detailed in the data provided here. The reported data shows that, according to an independent review panel assessing PET-CT scans, 32.4% of participants showed an overall response (combining both complete and partial responses). Breaking that down further, 12.0% showed a complete response and 20.4% showed a partial response. When the treating doctors (investigators) assessed the PET-CT scans themselves, they also reported an overall response rate of 32.4%. Using a different type of scan (CT only, without the PET component), the independent panel reported an overall response rate of 25.0% — made up of 7.4% complete responses and 17.6% partial responses — while the investigators reported 30.6% using CT scans. The reported data also shows one secondary measure called "duration of overall response," which tracked how long a response lasted from the time it was first recorded until the cancer progressed or the participant died. According to the independent panel's assessment using PET-CT, the median duration of response (the middle value when all response durations are lined up) was reported as 2.3 months. No additional detail about how this figure was calculated was included in the data provided. 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 ↗
NCT01974440 · results posted 14 April 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 403 people with certain types of slow-growing lymphoma (a cancer of the lymph system) — 201 in one group and 202 in the other. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (an inactive treatment) plus a standard chemotherapy-and-immunotherapy combination (called chemoimmunotherapy, or CIT), or a drug called ibrutinib plus the same CIT combination. The trial's main focus was on how long participants went without their disease getting worse or returning — a measure called "progression-free survival." The reported data shows that, for the main group of participants, the median progression-free survival (that is, the middle point in time at which half the group had experienced disease progression or death) was reported as approximately 23.75 months in the placebo plus CIT group, and approximately 40.51 months in the ibrutinib plus CIT group. For a smaller subgroup of 56 participants who had a specific type called Marginal Zone Lymphoma, the median progression-free survival in the placebo plus CIT group was reported as approximately 91.63 months, while a median figure for the ibrutinib plus CIT group was not reported (listed as "NA," meaning the data was not available or the endpoint had not been reached). Regarding how long participants lived overall (called "overall survival"), median figures were not reported for either group in any analysis. For the secondary measure of complete response — meaning no detectable signs of disease — the reported data shows rates of approximately 50.2% for placebo plus CIT and 55% for ibrutinib plus CIT across the main group, and 60.7% versus 64.3% in the Marginal Zone Lymphoma subgroup. 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 ↗
NCT03019640 · results posted 16 February 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 22 people who received a combination treatment involving chemotherapy, natural killer (NK) cell infusion, and a stem cell transplant. Of the 22 who started, 14 were recorded as having completed the study, while 8 did not complete it. The trial was looking at two main things: whether anyone died as a direct result of the treatment within the first 30 days, and how many participants were still alive at 180 days (roughly six months) after treatment. The reported data shows that zero out of the 22 participants died as a direct result of the treatment within the first 30 days — this was the primary thing the trial set out to measure. For the secondary measure, the reported data shows that 16 participants were recorded as having survived at the 180-day mark. No other outcome figures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so further details beyond these two measures are not available from this source. 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 ↗
NCT02257242 · results posted 9 February 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 11 participants in total across nine dose groups. Each group received a different dose of a drug called Vincristine Sulfate Liposome Injection, ranging from 1.8 mg/m² up to 2.24 mg/m² (mg/m² means milligrams per square metre of body surface area — a standard way of tailoring a dose to a person's size). The main thing the trial was trying to work out was the "maximum tolerated dose" — that is, the highest dose level that could be given according to the study's safety rules. Ten of the 11 participants completed the study; one person in the lowest-dose group did not. The reported data shows that the primary finding — the maximum tolerated dose — was calculated to be 2.24 mg/m², based on a statistical method that combined information from all participants. For the secondary measures, the trial tracked how many people completed six full rounds (cycles) of treatment: across all nine dose groups, eight out of 11 participants did so. Researchers also looked at tumour response using standard imaging criteria. The reported data shows that 5 out of 11 participants had a measurable response to treatment (meaning their tumours shrank by at least 30% or disappeared entirely on scans). Of those, 5 participants were recorded as having a complete response — meaning all target areas of disease had disappeared on imaging — spread across the 1.8, 2.04, 2.14, 2.22, and 2.24 mg/m² dose groups. Some response rate figures for the remaining dose groups were not reported in the submitted data. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial — just 11 people — and its primary purpose was to find a dose level for further study, not to draw broad conclusions about the treatment. 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 ↗
NCT02807883 · results posted 20 January 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 23 participants, all of whom received a treatment called blinatumomab. The trial was looking at blinatumomab in the context of a bone marrow (stem cell) transplant from a donor. The main thing the trial set out to measure was whether participants experienced certain serious side effects linked to the treatment — specifically, a serious immune reaction called acute graft-versus-host disease (where the donor cells attack the recipient's body), transplant failure, or death unrelated to the disease returning, within the first treatment cycle. Two participants did not complete the study, while 21 did. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure — the number of participants who experienced those specific serious toxicities (side effects) — the result was zero out of 23 participants. In other words, none of the participants were recorded as having met those particular toxicity criteria. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 15 out of 23 participants were recorded as being free from disease progression or death (meaning the disease had not worsened beyond a set threshold and they were still alive) during the follow-up period. Additionally, 18 out of 23 participants were reported as being alive and free of disease at up to one year. It is worth noting that the data as submitted does not include information on exact follow-up timeframes for all measures or reasons for the two participants who did not complete the study, so those details are not available 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 ↗
NCT01700946 · results posted 28 September 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 42 participants in total — 18 classified as "standard risk" and 24 classified as "high risk" — all of whom had a type of blood cancer called precursor B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) that had either come back after treatment or had not responded to initial treatment. The trial was measuring how many participants were still alive at three years, how many had gone that long without their disease getting worse or returning, and also looking at two biological markers: traces of remaining cancer cells (called minimal residual disease, or MRD) and the level of a protein on cancer cells called CD20. The reported data shows that for the three-year overall survival rate (the proportion of participants still alive at three years), the figure was 94.4% in the standard-risk group, 55.5% in the high-risk group, and 72.63% across all participants combined. For the three-year event-free survival rate (the proportion who went three years without a relapse or other setback), the reported figures were 83.3% for the standard-risk group, 55.7% for the high-risk group, and 67.83% overall. Regarding MRD — tiny traces of cancer cells remaining after initial treatment — the reported data shows that in this trial (called ALLR18), 4 out of 42 participants still had detectable MRD at the end of induction therapy, compared with 10 out of a comparison group from an earlier trial (ALLR17). The reported data also includes measurements of CD20 protein levels on cancer cells. At the start of the study, the average (mean) CD20 level was 31.10% in the standard-risk group and 39.82% in the high-risk group, giving an overall average of 36.23%. After treatment with a drug called rituximab, the mean CD20 levels were reported as 18.54% (standard risk), 20.10% (high risk), and 19.43% overall. 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 ↗
NCT04439253 · results posted 28 September 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04439253) enrolled 4 participants, all of whom received the study drug crizotinib. None of the 4 participants completed the trial — all four left before it finished, though the reasons for this are not detailed in the reported data. The trial was measuring how the drug performed against certain cancers, focusing on three main things: how many participants saw their tumour shrink or disappear (called the objective response rate), how many were free from their disease getting worse after six months, and how long in total participants went without their disease getting worse. The reported data shows that 25% of participants (1 out of 4) had their tumour shrink or disappear, which is what the trial counted as a positive response. For the six-month mark, the reported data shows that 50% of participants were still free from their disease getting worse at that point. The reported median time before disease got worse or a participant died was 4.3 months — meaning that when the group was looked at as a whole, half of participants reached that point before 4.3 months and half after. It is important to note that only 4 people took part in this trial, which is a very small number, and no formal comparison group (such as a placebo or standard treatment group) was included in the reported data. This means the numbers above should be interpreted with considerable caution. 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 ↗
NCT01319981 · results posted 27 September 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 31 people in total — 15 in a group receiving a chemotherapy combination called Hyper-CMAD together with a medicine called Rituximab, and 16 in a group receiving Hyper-CMAD alone. All 31 participants who started the trial were recorded as having completed it. The trial was measuring three things: how many people achieved a "complete remission" (meaning their blood and bone marrow results returned to near-normal levels with no signs of disease elsewhere in the body) at one year, how long that remission lasted, and how long participants survived overall. The reported data shows that in the Hyper-CMAD plus Rituximab group, 12 out of 15 participants were recorded as being in complete remission at one year, while in the Hyper-CMAD alone group, 13 out of 16 participants were recorded as being in complete remission at one year. For both overall survival and how long the complete remission lasted, the trial used a statistical method to estimate a midpoint figure, but the reported data shows that this midpoint figure was not reached in either group — meaning the data was not reported as a single number, because not enough participants had experienced those events by the end of follow-up. It is worth noting that this was a relatively small trial with 31 participants across both groups, which is worth keeping in mind when considering the numbers above. The reported data shows results for these specific participants under the conditions of this study only. 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 ↗
NCT03488251 · results posted 16 August 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03488251) tested a combination of an investigational drug called MT-3724 together with two other medicines (gemcitabine and oxaliplatin) in people with a type of blood cancer called B-cell lymphoma. The trial was designed in two parts: Part 1 was a dose-finding stage where different amounts of MT-3724 were tested (10, 25, or 50 micrograms per kilogram), and Part 2 was planned as a broader expansion stage. The trial enrolled 8 participants in total, all of whom were placed in the lowest-dose group (Part 1, Cohort 1, at 10 mcg/kg). No participants were enrolled in the other cohorts or in Part 2, and none of the 8 participants completed the trial period. The main things the trial set out to measure were unwanted medical events (called adverse events) and specific serious side-effect thresholds known as dose-limiting toxicities. The reported data shows that of the 8 participants who started, 2 experienced what are called dose-limiting toxicities — that is, unwanted medical events in the first treatment cycle that were considered at least possibly linked to the study drug and serious enough to potentially limit the dose used. All 8 participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence that happened after treatment began), and 4 participants experienced a serious adverse event — meaning an event that was life-threatening, required hospitalisation, or met other serious criteria as defined by the trial. The reported data shows that the secondary outcome measures — which were intended to track how the drug moved through the body (for example, peak drug levels in the blood and how long it stayed there) and how it affected certain immune cells — were all recorded as "not available." This means those figures were not reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. 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 ↗
NCT03568461 · results posted 22 July 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03568461) enrolled 98 people, all of whom received a single treatment called tisagenlecleucel (also referred to as CTL019), a type of personalised cell therapy. One person did not end up receiving the treatment, so 97 people were actually treated. The trial was measuring how participants' follicular lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) responded to this treatment, using standardised imaging scans (CT and PET scans) assessed by an independent review panel. The reported data shows that, among those treated, 68.1% were recorded as having a complete response — meaning scans showed no detectable sign of disease at their best point during the study. When partial responses (where the disease shrank but did not fully disappear on scans) were also counted, the reported overall response rate was 86.2%. For two of the secondary measures — how long responses lasted overall and how long complete responses specifically lasted — the reported data shows a value of "NA" (not available), meaning a final number was not reported for those outcomes. The reported median time without disease progression was 53.2 months, and the median overall survival figure was also listed as "NA," meaning that data was not reported. 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 ↗
NCT04225676 · results posted 15 July 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04225676) enrolled 5 participants who received a treatment called tisagenlecleucel — a type of personalised cell therapy. The trial was originally planned to run for 12 months, but it was ended early, meaning it ran for approximately 9 months instead. None of the 5 participants formally completed the trial, and no participants completed it as originally planned. The trial was primarily measuring whether the treatment caused a specific change in blood cells called "B-cell aplasia" — a drop in a type of immune cell (B lymphocytes) to a very low level in the blood, which is used as a sign that the therapy is active in the body. The reported data shows that, out of 5 participants, 2 showed this B-cell aplasia response at some point after receiving the re-infusion. For a secondary measure looking at disease remission (meaning no detectable signs of disease), the reported data shows responses were tracked across several time points; across those time points, there were instances of complete remission recorded, and one instance of remission with incomplete blood count recovery — though the trial team noted that an overall remission rate was not formally calculated due to the small number of people enrolled. The reported data also shows that 1 participant experienced a defined "event" (such as death after remission, relapse, or treatment failure), and that no deaths were reported during the study period. It is worth noting that because the trial closed early with only 5 participants, the reported numbers are very small, and the results as submitted reflect this limited dataset. 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 ↗
NCT00006436 · results posted 28 June 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 68 participants, all of whom received a combination of chemotherapy and biological (immune-based) therapy. Sixty-five of the 68 participants completed the study, and three did not. The trial was primarily measuring how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called "progression-free survival"), and also tracked how long participants survived overall, as well as side effects from treatment. The reported data shows that the median time before disease progression or death was 13.8 years — meaning that, at the midpoint of results, half of participants had gone at least that long without their disease worsening. At the one-year mark, 79.1% of participants were reported to be free of disease progression. For overall survival, the reported median was 14.2 years, and 83.7% of participants were alive at the one-year point. The reported data also shows a median duration of 13.9 years for participants who achieved a complete or near-complete response (meaning all or most signs of their condition had disappeared). Regarding side effects outside of the blood and bone marrow, 17 participants experienced severe (Grade 3) reactions; no Grade 4 (life-threatening) reactions were reported in this category; and no deaths directly linked to a side effect (Grade 5) were reported in this category. Note that the secondary side-effect data as submitted contained some figures that were not straightforward to separate across all categories, so only the clearly reported numbers have been described 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 ↗
NCT03493451 · results posted 4 May 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 77 people across three groups, all of whom had types of lymphoma (a cancer of the immune system). Group 1 had 22 people with a type called ENKTL; Group 2 had 44 people with types called PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALCL; and Group 3 had 11 people with types called MF or SS. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants had their cancer respond — meaning it either fully cleared up or partially reduced — according to established medical assessment guidelines. No participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the formal sense, meaning all participants either left or the study ended before they reached that milestone. The reported data shows that for the main measure — the proportion of participants whose cancer responded to treatment — the figures were 31.8% in Group 1, 20.5% in Group 2, and 45.5% in Group 3. For secondary measures, the reported data shows that among those whose cancer did respond, the length of time that response lasted (called duration of response) was not reported for Group 1, 8.2 months for Group 2, and 11.3 months for Group 3. The time from starting treatment until the cancer worsened or a participant died (called progression-free survival) was reported as 2.7 months for both Groups 1 and 2, and 16.8 months for Group 3. Overall survival — the time from starting treatment until death from any cause — was reported for Groups 1 and 2 only, at 8.8 months and 13.3 months respectively. The proportion of participants whose cancer fully cleared was 18.2% in Group 1, 9.1% in Group 2, and 9.1% in Group 3. The time from starting treatment until a response was first recorded was approximately 5.75 months, 2.86 months, and 6.83 months for Groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively. 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 ↗
NCT02910583 · results posted 18 February 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02910583) enrolled a total of 323 people with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) — 159 in a "Fixed Duration" group who all received the same set course of treatment, and 164 in an "MRD" group whose ongoing treatment was guided by a blood/bone marrow test measuring tiny amounts of remaining cancer cells (called "minimal residual disease," or MRD). The trial was measuring things like how many people achieved a complete response (meaning no detectable signs of disease by standard criteria), how long responses lasted, and — for those in the MRD group whose disease became undetectable — whether they remained disease-free over time. The reported data shows that in the Fixed Duration group, about 57% of all treated participants achieved a complete response (or near-complete response). In the MRD group, the overall complete response rate was reported as approximately 67% across all treated participants, ranging from around 56% to 79% depending on which sub-group and treatment arm participants were in. For those in the MRD group whose disease became fully undetectable and who were then randomly assigned to continue on ibrutinib or switch to a placebo, the one-year disease-free survival rate (the proportion still showing no signs of returning disease at 12 months) was reported as 100% for the ibrutinib arm and 95.3% for the placebo arm. The reported data also shows that at the 42-month mark, between approximately 93% and 98% of MRD group participants who had responded to treatment were still maintaining that response, depending on their sub-group. For the secondary measures, the overall response rate (which includes partial as well as complete responses) was reported as 97% across all MRD group participants, and 100% in each of the individual sub-groups. MRD-negativity rates — the proportion of people in whom cancer cells became undetectable by the sensitive blood or bone marrow test — ranged from approximately 48% to 82% depending on the sub-group and the time point measured. 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 ↗
NCT03235544 · results posted 10 February 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03235544) enrolled a total of 161 people across four groups. Participants were divided based on whether they had previously been exposed to a drug called ibrutinib (a type of cancer treatment) or had never received that type of treatment before. Within each of those two broad categories, people were assigned to one of two treatment options, labelled Treatment A or Treatment B. The trial's main goal was to measure how many participants had their cancer shrink or disappear — a figure called the Objective Response Rate (ORR). The reported data shows that, for the group who had previously been exposed to ibrutinib, the ORR was 8.3% for those on Treatment A and 39.0% for those on Treatment B. For the group who had never received that type of treatment before, the ORR was 64.5% for Treatment A and 71.4% for Treatment B. Looking at secondary measures, the reported data shows that the median time a response lasted (Duration of Response) was not reported for Cohort 1 Treatment A, was approximately 3.2 months for Cohort 1 Treatment B, 17.5 months for Cohort 2 Treatment A, and 13.0 months for Cohort 2 Treatment B. The reported overall survival figures — meaning the median time from first dose until death from any cause — were approximately 10.9 months and 11.0 months for the two ibrutinib-exposed groups, and approximately 33.5 months and 45.9 months for the two treatment-naïve groups. The reported data also shows that the best recorded shrinkage in tumour size was a median reduction of around 19.8% and 9.5% in the ibrutinib-exposed groups (Treatments A and B respectively), and around 64.7% and 67.5% in the treatment-naïve groups. Complete response rates — meaning no detectable signs of disease — were reported as 0%, 2.4%, 22.6%, and 15.6% across the four groups. It is worth noting that only a small number of participants completed the study in each group, which is worth keeping in mind when considering these figures. 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 ↗
NCT02736617 · results posted 5 January 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 10 participants in total. The trial was measuring how people responded to treatment — specifically, whether their disease showed a complete response (CR, meaning no detectable disease) or a partial response (PR, meaning the disease shrank noticeably). It also tracked how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival), and recorded serious side effects. Ten people started the treatment phase, seven completed it and moved into a maintenance phase, and two completed the maintenance phase. The reported data shows that, among those assessed for effectiveness, 89% showed either a complete or partial response to treatment — meaning roughly 8 or 9 out of every 10 people in that group had their disease shrink or disappear based on the measurements used. For progression-free survival, the reported median was 14 months — that is, half of the participants assessed went at least 14 months before their disease progressed or they passed away. Regarding serious side effects (rated Grade 3 or higher, meaning significant or severe), the reported data shows several individual counts across different categories of adverse events: 1, 1, 4, 2, and 1 participants respectively, though the specific names of those side effect categories were not broken out in the data provided here. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial of only 10 people, and some figures — such as the upper limit of the confidence interval for progression-free survival — were not fully 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 ↗
NCT02367040 · results posted 4 January 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02367040) enrolled 458 adults with a type of blood cancer called indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (including a condition called Waldenström macroglobulinemia). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the drug copanlisib combined with rituximab (307 people) or a placebo (an inactive substance) combined with rituximab (151 people). The main thing the trial was measuring was how long participants went without their disease getting worse — called progression-free survival, or PFS. A number of secondary measures were also tracked, including how many participants' cancer responded to treatment and how long those responses lasted. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of PFS, the median time before disease worsening or death was approximately 21–23 months in the copanlisib plus rituximab group, compared with approximately 14 months in the placebo plus rituximab group (exact figures varied slightly across different analysis sets reported). For secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants recorded as having any measurable response to treatment (the objective response rate) was reported as around 80–81% in the copanlisib group and around 48–50% in the placebo group. The proportion achieving a complete response was around 34% versus 15%, respectively. The median duration of response — how long a response lasted — was reported as roughly 20–26 months in the copanlisib group and 15–17 months in the placebo group. The disease control rate (which also counts stable disease) was around 89% in the copanlisib group and 85% in the placebo group. 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 ↗
NCT01420679 · results posted 19 November 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01420679) enrolled 21 people in total — 14 in the Pralatrexate group and 7 in the Observation group. The trial was designed to measure how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival), how long participants lived overall (overall survival), and how many participants showed a measurable response to treatment. None of the 21 participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, with all participants listed under "not completed." The reported data shows that for both primary outcome measures — progression-free survival and overall survival — the results were recorded as "NA" (not available), meaning no figures were reported for either group. Similarly, no numbers were reported for the objective response rate (the measure of how many participants had their disease shrink or disappear). This may reflect the fact that the trial did not reach its intended size or was stopped early, though the specific reason is not stated in the submitted data. The reported data shows that for a secondary measure tracking adverse events (unexpected or unwanted medical occurrences) and serious adverse events, all 14 participants in the Pralatrexate group and 6 out of 7 in the Observation group experienced some form of adverse event. Serious adverse events were recorded in 8 participants in the Pralatrexate group and 2 in the Observation group. Four participants in the Pralatrexate group and none in the Observation group had a serious adverse event that led to stopping treatment. These numbers describe what was recorded and counted — they do not, on their own, indicate whether any outcome was expected or unexpected. 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 ↗
NCT03520920 · results posted 28 October 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 41 people across three groups, all of whom had blood cancers that had either come back or stopped responding to previous treatment. There were 20 people with a type of large B-cell lymphoma (called non-germinal center B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma), 16 with follicular lymphoma, and 5 with marginal zone lymphoma. All 41 participants received at least one dose of the study drug, and none were recorded as having formally "completed" the study — meaning all had left the study early for various reasons, which is common in trials involving serious illness. The trial's main goal was to measure the overall response rate — that is, the proportion of participants whose cancer showed either a partial or complete reduction according to set criteria. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome (overall response rate), 35% of participants in the large B-cell lymphoma group, 56.3% in the follicular lymphoma group, and 60% in the marginal zone lymphoma group met the criteria for a partial or complete response. For secondary outcomes, the researchers also tracked how long responses lasted (duration of response) and how long people went without their disease getting worse (progression-free survival). The reported median duration of response was approximately 8.8 months for the large B-cell lymphoma group, approximately 22.2 months for the marginal zone lymphoma group, and was not able to be calculated for the follicular lymphoma group because not enough response events had occurred. The reported median progression-free survival was approximately 3.4 months for the large B-cell lymphoma group, 11.1 months for the follicular lymphoma group, and approximately 24.9 months for the marginal zone lymphoma group. For overall survival (how long participants lived from their first dose), the reported median was approximately 11.2 months for the large B-cell lymphoma group, while a median figure was not able to be calculated for the other two groups based on the available 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 ↗
NCT03647488 · results posted 25 October 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03647488) was designed in two parts: a "run-in" phase to test a combination of two drugs — capmatinib and spartalizumab — and a planned "randomised" phase that would have compared that combination against a standard chemotherapy called docetaxel. The run-in phase enrolled 18 participants. The randomised phase never began, meaning no participants were enrolled into either of its two groups, and the trial did not progress to its main stage. The reported data shows that during the run-in phase, all 18 participants experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted health change tracked during the study). Of those, 14 experienced adverse events that were considered related to the study treatment. One participant experienced what is called a "dose-limiting toxicity" — meaning a side effect serious enough to limit how much of the drug could be given. Six participants needed at least one reduction in their capmatinib dose, and eight participants needed at least one interruption to their capmatinib dosing, while three needed an interruption to spartalizumab. The reported data also shows that participants received, on average, nearly the full planned dose of both drugs (99.6% for capmatinib and 100% for spartalizumab). Because the randomised part of the trial never started, the main outcome it was designed to measure — how long participants lived overall (called "overall survival") — was never assessed. The trial's primary question therefore remains unanswered, and no comparison between the drug combination and docetaxel was made. 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 ↗
NCT03535740 · results posted 25 October 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03535740) enrolled 103 participants, all of whom received the study drug brigatinib, starting at a dose of 90 mg with the option to increase to 180 mg, and a further optional increase to 240 mg for some participants (13 people reached that highest dose). The trial was measuring how brigatinib affected participants' cancer tumours, using standardised criteria to assess whether tumours shrank, stayed stable, or grew over time. The reported data shows that none of the 103 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study, meaning all had left the trial before its scheduled end — the data does not explain the reasons for each individual case. The reported data shows that the main result — the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank by a meaningful amount (called the "objective response rate") — was 26.2%, whether assessed by an independent review team or by the treating doctors. In other words, roughly 1 in 4 participants had a recorded tumour shrinkage meeting the study's criteria. Among those who did have that level of tumour shrinkage, the reported length of time before the tumour started growing again was approximately 6.3 months (independent review) and 6.7 months (treating doctors' assessment). The reported time from first dose until tumours first began to shrink was approximately 1.8 months under both assessments. The proportion of participants whose disease either shrank or remained stable — known as the "disease control rate" — was reported as 54.4% by the independent review and 59.2% by the treating doctors. The reported time from first dose until the disease progressed or death occurred was approximately 3.8 months under both assessments. 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 ↗
NCT03045328 · results posted 29 September 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 22 people, all of whom received a combination of two medicines — ibrutinib and venetoclax — for a form of blood cancer called chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Twenty of the 22 participants completed the study, while 2 did not. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants reached a "complete response" — meaning their test results met a strict set of criteria showing no detectable signs of the disease in their blood, lymph nodes, liver, spleen, or bone marrow. The reported data shows that, out of 22 participants, 12 met the criteria for a complete response (the primary goal). For the secondary measurements — additional things the trial was tracking — the reported figures are as follows: 15 out of 22 participants maintained their response (either a full or partial improvement) at around 117 weeks (roughly two years and three months); 16 out of 22 participants were still alive at that same 117-week point; and 15 out of 22 remained alive without their disease progressing at 117 weeks. Looking at overall response at 62 weeks, the reported data shows 12 participants achieved a complete response, 8 achieved a partial response (meaning meaningful but not full improvement in their test results), and 0 had stable disease (little change either way). The reported data also shows results for a measure called minimal residual disease (MRD) — a test that looks for tiny numbers of leukaemia cells that may remain even when someone feels well. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 13 participants tested negative for MRD (the preferred result), while 3 tested positive, meaning some leukaemia cells were still detectable. 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 ↗
NCT00425555 · results posted 16 August 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 139 people with a type of skin cancer called cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) that had not responded to previous treatments. Participants were divided into two groups: 79 who had previously been treated with a drug called bexarotene, and 60 who had not. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants showed a meaningful improvement in their skin disease while taking panobinostat, using a scoring tool called the mSWAT (a standardised way of measuring how much of the skin is affected by disease). The reported data shows that, overall, 18.5% of all participants showed a response in their skin disease as measured by the mSWAT score — meaning roughly 26 out of 139 people met the criteria for either a complete response (no visible skin disease) or a partial response (at least a 50% reduction in their skin score). In the bexarotene-exposed group, the reported response rate was 16.7%, and in the bexarotene-naive group it was 20.3%. Among those who did respond, the reported data shows it took a median of around 82 days for all participants to show that response, and the median duration of that response across all participants was reported as 280 days. Progression-free survival — meaning the time from starting treatment until the disease worsened or a person died — was reported as a median of approximately 114 days across all participants (reported in months as 114, though the unit listed was months, which may warrant clarification with a treating doctor). A quality-of-life measure tracking emotional wellbeing (Skindex-29 emotions sub-score, where higher numbers mean worse quality of life) showed scores that appeared to decrease over time in both groups, though the full breakdown across cycles was not completely reported in the data provided. 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 ↗
NCT03178201 · results posted 16 July 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03178201) enrolled 5 participants, all of whom received the study drug TGR-1202. The trial was designed to measure how well the treatment reduced or eliminated signs of disease (called the "overall response rate"), as well as how long participants lived without their disease getting worse, how long any response to treatment lasted, and information about dose changes and side effects. The reported data shows that none of the 5 participants completed the trial — all 5 withdrew or were removed before finishing. Importantly, no numerical results were reported to ClinicalTrials.gov for any of the outcome measures, including the primary measure (overall response rate) or any of the secondary measures such as progression-free survival, duration of response, dose delays, dose reductions, or treatment-related side events. Because no measurement data was submitted, it is not possible to describe what the trial found in terms of numbers. 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 ↗
NCT01431209 · results posted 24 June 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 60 people across two groups: 47 with a type of blood cancer called Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) and 13 with another type called Peripheral T-cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (PTCL). The trial was measuring how many participants responded to the treatment, how long they lived overall, and how long it was before their disease got worse or they passed away. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — how many people showed an overall response to treatment — the numbers reported across different response categories were small in both groups, with the largest single category in the DLBCL group being 34 participants and 7 in the PTCL group. However, the data as submitted does not include clear labels for each response category (such as "complete response" or "partial response"), so a full breakdown cannot be described here. For the secondary measures, the reported median overall survival (that is, the midpoint survival time for the group) was 5.9 months for the DLBCL group and 6.9 months for the PTCL group. The reported median progression-free survival (the midpoint time before the disease worsened or patients passed away) was 1.8 months for the DLBCL group and 2.2 months for the PTCL group. 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 ↗
NCT00742027 · results posted 3 June 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 129 participants, all of whom received a drug called panobinostat. The trial was measuring how well the drug reduced or eliminated signs of lymphoma (a type of blood cancer), looking mainly at what proportion of participants had a meaningful reduction in their disease — called the "objective response rate." None of the 129 participants were recorded as having completed the study in the usual sense, as all 129 were listed under "not completed," which may reflect how the study's completion was defined by the sponsor. The reported data shows that, based on the treating doctors' assessments, 5 out of 129 participants had a complete response (meaning all detectable signs of disease disappeared), and 30 out of 129 had a partial response (meaning disease shrank by at least half). A further 71 participants had stable disease (neither enough shrinkage nor enough growth to meet the other categories), 14 had disease that progressed (continued to grow), and 9 had an unknown or unassessable outcome. When the same scans were reviewed independently by a central team, the reported figures were slightly different: approximately 0.8% of participants had a complete response and 20.9% had a partial response, with around 56.6% having stable disease, 15.5% progressing, and 6.2% with an unknown result. The reported data also shows several secondary measurements. Among those who did respond, the time from starting treatment to first recorded response was reported as approximately 9.9 weeks on average, and responses lasted around 30.1 weeks on average. The time before disease progressed or participants died (known as "progression-free survival") was reported as a median of 6.1 months, while the median overall survival — the point by which half the participants had died — was reported as 34.9 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 ↗
NCT01943851 · results posted 19 May 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01943851) tested a drug called GSK525762 in people with certain blood cancers, including types of leukaemia (AML), lymphoma (NHL), multiple myeloma (MM), a skin lymphoma (CTCL), and a bone marrow condition (MDS). The trial ran in two parts. In Part 1, the main goal was to find out what happened when participants received different daily doses of the drug — ranging from 5 mg up to 120 mg — and to track how their bodies responded at each dose level. In Part 2, selected doses were tested in specific cancer groups. Across both parts, a total of around 115 people took part, spread across 18 different dose-and-disease subgroups. The reported data shows that in Part 1, across the various dose groups, a number of participants experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events) or serious adverse events during treatment. For example, in the 60 mg group for NHL (18 participants), 2 people met criteria for what the trial defined as a "dose-limiting toxicity" — meaning a medical event considered serious enough to set a limit on the dose — while no dose-limiting toxicities were recorded in most of the other dose groups. Dose reductions were most common in the 60 mg NHL group (8 out of 18 participants), and dose interruptions or delays also occurred across several groups, again most frequently in the 60 mg NHL group (15 out of 18 participants). Changes in blood chemistry and blood count measurements from participants' starting levels were also recorded across groups, with numbers varying by dose and cancer type. The reported data for several of the smaller subgroups (some with only 1 participant) was limited, and some figures for the larger Part 1 dose groups (80 mg NHL, 100 mg AML, and 120 mg AML) were not fully reported in the data provided. 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 ↗
NCT02165397 · results posted 16 November 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 181 people in total. Seventy-five participants were randomly assigned to receive ibrutinib plus rituximab (two medicines given together), 75 received a placebo (a dummy pill) plus rituximab, and a further 31 took part in a separate open-label sub-study where everyone received ibrutinib. The trial was studying a blood cancer called Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia, and it was primarily measuring how long participants went without their disease getting worse — called "progression-free survival." The reported data shows that at the 54-month mark (roughly four and a half years), an estimated 68% of participants in the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group had not experienced disease progression or death, compared with about 25% in the placebo-plus-rituximab group and about 40% in the open-label sub-study group. For secondary measures, the reported overall response rate (meaning participants whose disease showed a measurable reduction) was 76% in the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group, 31% in the placebo-plus-rituximab group, and 77% in the open-label sub-study group. The reported data also shows that at 54 months, an estimated 87% of the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group had not yet needed a further treatment for their cancer, compared with about 29% in the placebo-plus-rituximab group. Other secondary measures tracked included improvements in haemoglobin levels (a measure of red blood cells), fatigue scores, and overall survival at 54 months. The reported data shows that around 77% of the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group had a sustained improvement in haemoglobin, compared with 43% in the placebo-plus-rituximab group. Estimated survival at 54 months was reported as 86% in the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group, 84% in the placebo-plus-rituximab group, and 73% in the open-label sub-study group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00542919 · results posted 19 October 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 57 people across three groups based on their type of lymphoma (a cancer of the lymph system): 23 with T-Cell Lymphoma (TCL), 19 with Indolent (slow-growing) B-Cell Lymphoma (IBCL), and 15 with Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma (ABCL). All participants received at least one dose of the study drug. The trial's main goal was to measure how many participants showed a tumour response — meaning their cancer either disappeared completely or shrank significantly according to set medical criteria. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of tumour response rate, the figure was 0% across most subgroups. The only subgroups where any response was recorded were: participants with a history of slow-growing B-Cell Lymphoma who had converted to an aggressive form (10% response rate), and participants with Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma — a type affecting the skin (9.1% response rate). For the secondary measures, the reported data shows how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival). This ranged from a median of 58 days in the Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma subgroup up to 429 days in the Follicular Grade 1 & 2 subgroup. At the one-year mark, the percentage of participants still alive and without their disease worsening ranged from 0% in some subgroups to around 51% in the Follicular Grade 1 & 2 subgroup. Regarding drug-related unwanted effects, the reported data shows that 2 participants in the T-Cell group, 3 in the Indolent B-Cell group, and 0 in the Aggressive B-Cell group experienced one or more drug-related adverse events, though no further detail on the nature of those events was included in this results 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.

Read the full trial page
NCT02809053 · results posted 8 October 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 315 people in total — 157 in the SAIT101 group and 158 in the MabThera group. The trial was comparing these two medicines, with SAIT101 being tested as a potential biosimilar (a very closely related copy) of MabThera, which is an already-approved medicine. The main thing the trial was measuring was how many participants showed a meaningful reduction in their condition — called an "overall response" — by week 28. Most participants completed the study, with 150 in the SAIT101 group and 152 in the MabThera group finishing the full follow-up period. The reported data shows that at week 28 (the main measurement point), 66.3% of participants in the SAIT101 group and 70.6% in the MabThera group had an overall response (meaning their condition showed either a complete or partial reduction). At the earlier check-in point of week 12, the reported figures were 59.6% for SAIT101 and 70.0% for MabThera. Looking at more detailed breakdowns, at week 28 the number of participants recorded as having a complete reduction was 51 (SAIT101) and 50 (MabThera), while a partial reduction was recorded in 47 (SAIT101) and 53 (MabThera) participants. Stable disease — meaning no clear change either way — was recorded in 22 and 27 participants respectively, and progressive disease (the condition worsening) was recorded in 20 (SAIT101) and 11 (MabThera) participants at week 28. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page
NCT00981799 · results posted 1 October 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a combination of three medicines — nelarabine, etoposide, and cyclophosphamide — given to children with a type of blood cancer called T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (T-ALL) or a related condition (T-LL) that had come back or was difficult to treat. A total of 23 children took part, spread across three different dose levels of nelarabine (6 at Dose Level 1, 7 at Dose Level 2, and 10 at Dose Level 3). No participants were enrolled at a fourth planned dose level (Dose Level 0). The trial was primarily measuring whether serious side effects — called "dose-limiting toxicities," meaning side effects severe enough to prevent continuing at that dose — occurred at each dose level. The reported data shows that, among those children considered eligible to be assessed for these serious side effects, none were recorded at Dose Level 1 (out of 5 assessed), 1 was recorded at Dose Level 2 (out of 5 assessed), and 2 were recorded at Dose Level 3 (out of 8 assessed). The trial also measured how many children went into complete remission (meaning no detectable signs of cancer) after one or two rounds of treatment. The reported data shows that, of those assessed for this outcome, 2 out of 3 assessed children at Dose Level 1 went into complete remission, 2 out of 4 at Dose Level 2, and 1 out of 9 at Dose Level 3. It is worth noting that not every enrolled participant was counted in these assessments, as only those who met specific eligibility criteria for each measurement were included. 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 ↗
NCT02393859 · results posted 13 July 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02393859) enrolled 57 people in the standard chemotherapy group (called HC3) and 54 people in the blinatumomab group. The trial was looking at children and young people with a type of blood cancer called acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) that had come back or was not responding to treatment. The main thing the trial was measuring was "event-free survival" — that is, how long participants went without their disease getting worse, coming back, or dying. It also looked at overall survival (how long participants lived), how well each treatment cleared cancer cells from the bone marrow, how long before the cancer came back, and what unwanted medical events (side effects) occurred. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome of event-free survival, the median time (the point at which half of participants had experienced an event) was reported as 7.4 months for the HC3 chemotherapy group in the first analysis, and 7.8 months in the final analysis. For the blinatumomab group, a median figure was not able to be calculated and was recorded as "not available" (NA) in both analyses — this typically happens when more than half of participants had not yet experienced an event by the end of follow-up. For overall survival, the HC3 group had a reported median of 25.6 months, while the blinatumomab group's figure was again not available. When looking at bone marrow cancer cell clearance (called MRD response — a measure of how many cancer cells remained after one cycle of treatment), the reported data shows approximately 53–60% of the HC3 group and approximately 93–94% of the blinatumomab group met the response threshold. The time to relapse (cancer returning) for the HC3 group had a reported median of 7.9 months, while again no median figure was available for the blinatumomab group. Regarding unwanted medical events, the reported data shows that in the HC3 chemotherapy group, 50 out of 52 treated participants experienced some form of treatment-emergent adverse event, and 43 had events considered related to the treatment; 24 experienced serious adverse events. In the blinatumomab group, all 54 treated participants experienced some form of adverse event, 33 had treatment-related events, and 15 experienced serious adverse events. No deaths were recorded as treatment-related in the HC3 group, while 2 were recorded in the blinatumomab group. 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 ↗
NCT00088205 · results posted 1 July 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 60 people, all of whom received at least one dose of the study drug, enzastaurin. The trial was looking at outcomes in people with a type of blood cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The main thing the trial set out to measure was how many participants went at least three full treatment cycles without their disease getting worse — referred to as "freedom from progression." No participants were recorded as having formally completed the study, meaning all 60 either withdrew, experienced disease progression, or left for other reasons before the study's defined completion point. The reported data shows that 35.6% of participants (roughly 36 out of every 100 people in the trial) were free from disease progression after three cycles of treatment. For the additional measures tracked, the reported median time before disease worsened or death occurred (progression-free survival) was approximately 1.97 months. The reported median overall survival — meaning the midpoint of how long participants lived from the time they joined the trial — was around 22 months. For those who had some level of response or stable disease, the reported median duration of that response was about 5.55 months. The median time before participants moved on to a new cancer treatment was reported as approximately 3.52 months. The data for the objective response rate (the proportion who had a measurable shrinkage or disappearance of their cancer) was not reported in the submitted 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01190930 · results posted 23 June 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01190930) enrolled a large number of children and young people with a type of blood cancer called B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL) or a related condition called B-lymphoblastic lymphoma (B-LLy). In total, 9,298 participants with B-ALL and 52 with B-LLy began the first phase of treatment (called induction). The trial was designed to look at several different questions at once — including whether different doses of a chemotherapy drug called methotrexate, or different schedules of two other drugs, made a difference in outcomes. It also followed specific groups such as children with Down syndrome and those classified as "low risk." The main thing being measured across all groups was how many participants remained free of a disease event (such as relapse or death while in remission) over a five-year period. The reported data shows the following five-year "disease-free survival" figures — that is, the estimated percentage of participants who had not experienced a relapse, a second cancer, or death during remission by the five-year mark. For the average-risk group comparing two methotrexate starting doses, the reported figures were 95.05% for the lower dose and 94.17% for the higher dose. For the average-risk group comparing two schedules of additional drug pulses, the figures were 94.10% for pulses every four weeks and 95.13% for pulses every 12 weeks. In the low-risk group comparing two gentler treatment regimens, both arms reported very similar figures: 98.75% and 98.50%. For participants with Down syndrome treated on a standardised plan, the reported five-year disease-free survival figure was 89.77%. For the B-LLy group, the reported five-year "event-free survival" (a slightly broader measure that also includes treatment failure during induction) was 94.54%. The reported data also shows that 89.7% of B-LLy participants provided tissue samples considered adequate for central review. 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 ↗
NCT02650999 · results posted 12 May 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02650999) involved 12 participants, all of whom received the study drug pembrolizumab. All 12 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring two main things: first, how many people had to stop taking the treatment due to a "dose-limiting toxicity" (a side effect serious enough to prevent them from continuing at that dose); and second, how many people showed an overall response to the treatment after three months. The reported data shows that approximately 8.33% of participants — which works out to roughly one person out of the 12 — discontinued therapy due to a dose-limiting toxicity. For the second measure, the reported data shows that 25% of participants — around three out of the 12 — had an overall response to the treatment at the three-month mark. No other outcome figures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. 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 ↗
NCT02624986 · results posted 29 April 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02624986) enrolled 25 people in total across eight different treatment groups. Participants had one of two types of lymphoma — diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL) — and were given varying doses of a drug called idasanutlin combined with either obinutuzumab or rituximab (both existing cancer medicines). The trial was designed to test different dose combinations and to measure whether participants' lymphoma showed a complete response (meaning scans showed no remaining signs of active disease) after a course of treatment. Notably, none of the 25 participants formally completed the trial as defined by the study protocol. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome — a complete response confirmed by an independent review committee using specialised body scans (PET-CT) — no results were recorded, meaning this data was not reported. For a similar measure assessed by the treating doctors (investigators) rather than an independent committee, the reported figures varied by group: 0% of participants in most DLBCL groups showed a complete response, while 33.3% in one DLBCL group (150 mg idasanutlin + obinutuzumab, non-bridging) did. In the follicular lymphoma groups, 50% of participants in one group (100 mg idasanutlin + obinutuzumab, non-bridging) and 40% in another (150 mg idasanutlin + obinutuzumab, bridging) showed a complete response by this measure. Because the groups were very small — some containing only 2–5 people — these percentages represent just one or two individuals. The reported data also shows that a secondary measure tracked "dose-limiting toxicities" — meaning side effects serious enough to potentially limit how much of the drug could be given. The number of participants who experienced these events was: 0 in the 100 mg DLBCL non-bridging group, 0 in the 150 mg DLBCL non-bridging group, 2 in the 200 mg DLBCL non-bridging group, 0 in the 150 mg DLBCL bridging group, 1 in the 200 mg DLBCL bridging group, 0 in the 100 mg FL non-bridging group, 1 in the 150 mg FL non-bridging group, and 1 in the FL bridging group. Several other secondary outcome measures were listed but the data was not reported for those measures. 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 ↗
NCT02669017 · results posted 13 April 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02669017) tested an experimental treatment called ADCT-402 in people with a type of blood cancer. A total of 183 participants took part across two phases of the study. The first phase tested different doses to find a suitable dose range — groups received 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, or 200 micrograms per kilogram of body weight given either every three weeks or every six weeks. The second phase then tested the two doses selected from the first phase (120 and 150 micrograms per kilogram) in larger groups of participants. The reported data shows that across the different dose groups, nearly all participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence that appeared or worsened after receiving the study drug). Serious adverse events — those involving hospitalisation, life-threatening situations, or other significant outcomes — were also recorded across all groups, ranging from 0 out of 4 participants in one smaller early group up to 40 out of 69 participants in the largest group. Regarding dose-limiting toxicities (particularly severe reactions used to judge whether a dose is too high), the reported data shows these occurred in 0 participants at the lowest four dose levels, 1 participant each at the 120 and 150 microgram doses, and 2 participants at the highest dose tested. Based on these findings, the doses of 120 and 150 micrograms per kilogram were selected for further testing. The reported data also includes tumour response — meaning whether scans showed the cancer had reduced. Across all dose groups combined, varying numbers of participants showed a response: for example, 25 out of 69 participants in the largest 150 microgram group (Part 2) and 11 out of 26 in the 120 microgram group (Part 2) showed either a complete or partial response. Among those who did show a response, the reported median duration of that response across all participants combined was approximately 5.36 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 ↗
NCT00901927 · results posted 3 April 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 14 people, all of whom received a combination of three medicines: bendamustine, mitoxantrone, and rituximab. The participants had a type of blood cancer called follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that had not been previously treated. Eight participants were recorded as completing the study, while six did not complete it. The trial was measuring how many people had a complete disappearance of all detectable signs of their disease (called a "complete response"), as well as tracking unwanted side effects and how long it took before the disease started growing again. The reported data shows that out of the 14 participants, 3 achieved a complete response — meaning all detectable signs of disease disappeared according to the criteria used by the researchers. For the side-effect (adverse event) outcome, the reported data shows that 3 participants experienced adverse events, though the data does not provide further detail about the nature or severity of those events. For the measure of how long it took before the disease progressed (started growing again), the reported figure was 5 months; however, the data does not specify whether this is an average, a median (the middle value in a range), or another type of summary, so further detail on that figure was not reported. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial, and the reported data reflects only the numbers submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov without additional context. 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 ↗
NCT03212261 · results posted 2 October 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03212261) involved a stress-reduction programme called the 3RP (Relaxation Response Resiliency Program), adapted for people with lymphoma (a type of blood cancer). A total of 37 people enrolled in the study. The trial was not testing whether the programme treated the cancer itself — instead, it was measuring whether the programme was practical to run (feasibility) and whether participants found it acceptable. Twenty-one people were recorded as having completed the study. The reported data shows that 20 out of the 26 people who started the programme completed at least 75% of the sessions, which was the main measure of whether the programme was considered feasible to deliver. For the acceptability questions — where participants rated the programme on a scale of 1 to 4 — the reported data shows that for four out of five questions, all 21 participants who responded gave a rating above the lowest score, and for one question, 19 out of 21 did so, with 2 giving the lowest rating. The trial also looked at whether it was practical to collect hair samples to measure cortisol (a biological marker linked to stress): 20 participants were eligible to provide samples, and 14 of those actually did so. The reported data shows that a number of people did not reach the end of the study — 16 out of the 37 who started did not complete it, for various reasons recorded across the different stages of the trial. The results as submitted reflect a small, single-group study focused on practical questions about running the programme, rather than a comparison between two different treatments. 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 ↗
NCT01738594 · results posted 29 August 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01738594) looked at two medicines — carfilzomib alone (Arm A) and carfilzomib combined with romidepsin (Arm B) — in people with certain blood cancers affecting the skin (cutaneous T-cell lymphoma). The trial was designed as a dose-finding study, meaning its main goal was to work out how much of each medicine could be given before side effects became too difficult to manage. In total, only 7 people were registered to take part — 3 in the carfilzomib-alone group and 4 in the carfilzomib-plus-romidepsin group — making this a very small trial. The trial was organised into different dose levels (called cohorts), though only the lower-dose cohorts enrolled any participants. The reported data shows that the primary outcome measured was the number of participants who experienced what the trial defined as "dose-limiting toxicities" (DLTs) — that is, serious side effects severe enough to signal that the dose may be too high. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, zero out of 3 participants in the carfilzomib-alone group (Cohort 1) experienced a DLT, zero out of 1 participant in the lower-dose carfilzomib-plus-romidepsin group (Cohort -1) experienced a DLT, and 2 out of 3 participants in the standard-dose carfilzomib-plus-romidepsin group (Cohort 1) experienced a DLT. The reported data shows that no results were submitted for any of the secondary outcomes — including overall response rate, duration of response, and time to disease progression — or for the additional measure looking at drug activity in blood and tissue samples. The data for these outcomes was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Given the very small number of participants enrolled overall, these findings should be understood in that context. 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 ↗
NCT01287104 · results posted 22 August 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 34 people in total across four groups. Three groups were patients who received infusions of natural killer (NK) cells — a type of immune cell — after a stem cell transplant, either from a related donor or an unrelated donor, and at different dose amounts. A fourth group was made up of the related donors themselves. The trial was primarily looking at whether patients could receive two rounds of NK cell infusions within 56 days of their transplant, and whether the transplanted cells successfully "took hold" (known as engraftment) in the body. The reported data shows that, of the patients who received NK cell infusions, 3 out of 4 in the lower-dose related-donor group, 2 out of 7 in the higher-dose related-donor group, and 5 out of 12 in the unrelated-donor group completed two rounds of infusions. For engraftment at the highest dose levels, 1 out of 7 patients in the higher-dose related-donor group and 5 out of 12 in the unrelated-donor group met the reported threshold. The reported data shows median survival figures (the midpoint of survival times across participants) ranging from roughly 10.5 to 34 months depending on the group, and disease-free periods ranging from approximately 2.8 to 10.35 months. Viral infections or reactivations were recorded across all three patient groups, with 6, 11, and 14 occurrences reported respectively. Chronic graft-versus-host disease — a condition where transplanted cells can react against the recipient's body — was reported in 2 participants in the unrelated-donor group and none in the other groups, with no moderate or severe cases recorded in any group. 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 ↗
NCT02272777 · results posted 19 August 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02272777) enrolled 225 participants in total — 112 in the imatinib group and 113 in the nilotinib group. Both imatinib and nilotinib are medicines used in the treatment of a type of blood cancer called chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). The trial was primarily measuring how many participants experienced unwanted health events (called adverse events, or AEs) and serious unwanted health events (called serious adverse events, or SAEs) while taking one of these two medicines. Almost all participants completed the study — 108 in the imatinib group and 109 in the nilotinib group, with only 4 dropping out in each group. The reported data shows that, out of the participants in each group, 82 people in the imatinib group and 84 people in the nilotinib group experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted health event of any kind). When it came to serious adverse events, 1 person in the imatinib group and 3 people in the nilotinib group experienced at least one. The reported data shows that no participants in either group died during the study. One participant in the nilotinib group was reported as having discontinued the study medication due to an adverse event, compared to none in the imatinib group. Additionally, 17 participants in each group experienced what were described as notable changes in laboratory test results or vital signs (such as blood pressure or heart rate) that were recorded as adverse events. It is important to note that this trial only reported descriptive numbers — meaning no formal statistical comparison between the two groups was made as part of this primary outcome. 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 ↗
NCT01186328 · results posted 24 July 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01186328) was testing a drug called EZN-3042 given alongside standard re-induction chemotherapy in children with relapsed B-precursor leukaemia (a type of blood cancer that had come back after treatment). The trial was designed to find the right dose of EZN-3042 by looking at how participants responded to treatment by Day 36 and monitoring for any side effects. Six participants were enrolled at the first dose level (Dose Level 1), five of whom completed the study and one who did not. The reported data shows that no participants were enrolled at Dose Level 2 or Dose Level 3. The reported data shows that for the primary goal — finding the maximum tolerated dose — 4 participants at Dose Level 1 and 0 participants at Dose Level 0 were counted in one measurement category, and 2 participants at Dose Level 1 and 0 at Dose Level 0 were counted in another. The specific labels for these two measurement categories were not clearly described in the submitted data, so a fuller explanation of what these numbers represent cannot be provided here. For the secondary goal, the trial looked at whether a particular protein called survivin (which plays a role in cancer cell survival) showed reduced activity in bone marrow cells after EZN-3042 was given. The reported data shows that 2 out of the participants at Dose Level 1 showed a decrease in survivin levels between the first measurement point (Day -6) and after the drug was given (Day 0). It is worth noting that because only the first dose level was tested and very few participants were enrolled overall, the data as submitted is limited in scope. 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 ↗
NCT00408005 · results posted 20 June 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,596 children and young people with a type of blood cancer called T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (T-ALL) and 299 with a related condition called T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LLy). The trial was testing different combinations of chemotherapy drugs — including whether adding a drug called nelarabine, and whether one type of methotrexate dosing compared to another, made a difference to outcomes. After the initial treatment phase, participants were divided into smaller groups based on their risk level and assigned to one of four treatment arms. The reported data shows the main thing being measured was "disease-free survival" — the percentage of participants who had not experienced a relapse (cancer coming back), a new cancer, or death over the follow-up period. For the comparison of treatment arms with and without nelarabine, the reported disease-free survival figures were approximately 83% for the groups without nelarabine and 88% for the groups with nelarabine. For the comparison of methotrexate dosing types, the reported figures were approximately 91% for one methotrexate approach and 86% for the other. For the T-LLy group, disease-free survival figures of approximately 85–87% and 85–100% were reported across the two arms, depending on the subgroup. A secondary measure looked at the percentage of participants whose cancer returned in the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord); the reported data shows these figures were generally low — mostly between 0% and around 9% — varying across the different treatment arms and risk 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.

Read the full trial page
NCT01506453 · results posted 19 June 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether gabapentin (a medicine sometimes used for nerve-related pain) could reduce the amount of morphine that children needed for breakthrough pain. A total of 51 children took part — 25 received gabapentin and 26 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active medicine). All 25 children in the gabapentin group finished the study, while 24 of the 26 in the placebo group completed it. Pain was measured using age-appropriate scales: a behavioural observation tool for very young children, a faces-based scale for children aged 4–7, and a number scale from 0 to 10 for older children, where 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst possible pain. The reported data shows that the primary thing being measured was the daily dose of morphine each child needed (in milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day). Across the multiple time points recorded during the study, the gabapentin group's reported daily morphine use ranged roughly from about 0.37 to 0.46 mg/kg/day, while the placebo group's ranged from about 0.27 to 0.44 mg/kg/day. For the secondary measures, "pain right now" scores across time points ranged from approximately 1.4 to 2.0 in the gabapentin group and 0.75 to 1.70 in the placebo group. Scores for "pain in the previous 24 hours" ranged from roughly 2.3 to 3.5 in the gabapentin group and 1.9 to 3.4 in the placebo group. The reported data does not include a statistical comparison between the two groups, so no conclusions about differences between groups can be drawn from the figures provided 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 ↗
NCT02596971 · results posted 13 June 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02596971) enrolled a total of 91 participants across three treatment groups: 42 people received atezolizumab combined with obinutuzumab and bendamustine (Atezo-G-Benda), 7 received atezolizumab with obinutuzumab and a chemotherapy combination called CHOP (Atezo-G-CHOP), and 42 received atezolizumab with rituximab and CHOP (Atezo-R-CHOP). The trial was measuring, among other things, how many participants showed a "complete response" — meaning scans showed no remaining detectable signs of disease — at the end of the induction (initial treatment) phase, as assessed by an independent review committee. It also recorded how many participants experienced any adverse events (unwanted medical occurrences) during the study. The reported data shows that, for the main (primary) complete response measure assessed by the independent committee, 75% of participants in the Atezo-G-Benda group and 77.5% in the Atezo-R-CHOP group met the criteria for complete response at the end of induction. The Atezo-G-CHOP group was not included in this particular primary measure. When the treating doctors (investigators) made their own assessments using slightly different criteria, the reported complete response figures ranged from 75% to 87.5% across the two groups, depending on which set of assessment criteria was used. For the broader measure of "objective response" — which includes both complete and partial responses (at least a 50% reduction in detectable disease) — the reported data shows 90% of participants in both the Atezo-G-Benda and Atezo-R-CHOP groups met this threshold according to the independent review committee. Regarding adverse events, the reported data shows that 100% of participants in all three groups experienced at least one adverse event during the study; however, the data as submitted does not break down the nature or severity of those events in the figures provided 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 ↗
NCT02264574 · results posted 16 April 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02264574) enrolled 229 people in total — 113 in a group receiving ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (IBR+OB) and 116 in a group receiving chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (CLB+OB). The trial was studying a type of blood cancer called chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), and its main goal was to measure how long participants went without their disease getting worse or dying — a period called "progression-free survival" (PFS). A number of secondary goals were also tracked, including overall survival, response rates, and certain blood markers. The reported data shows that, at the 30-month mark, an estimated 78.5% of participants in the IBR+OB group had not experienced disease progression or death, compared with 31.1% in the CLB+OB group. In a higher-risk subgroup of participants (those with certain genetic features), the reported 30-month progression-free figures were 82.4% for IBR+OB and 14.1% for CLB+OB. For overall survival at 30 months, the reported figures were similar between the two groups — 85.5% for IBR+OB and 84.9% for CLB+OB. The reported overall response rate (the proportion of participants whose disease showed a measurable response to treatment) was 88.5% in the IBR+OB group and 73.3% in the CLB+OB group. Regarding a blood marker called minimal residual disease (a measure of how many cancer cells remained detectable), 20.4% of the IBR+OB group and 17.2% of the CLB+OB group reached an undetectable level. Rates of a meaningful improvement in haemoglobin (a measure of red blood cell health) were 39.8% and 44.0% respectively. 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 ↗
NCT01728805 · results posted 11 April 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 372 participants across two treatment groups — 186 received a medicine called KW-0761 (mogamulizumab) and 186 received a medicine called vorinostat. The trial was studying a type of blood cancer that affects the skin (cutaneous T-cell lymphoma). The main thing the trial was measuring was "progression-free survival" — that is, the percentage of participants whose disease had not gotten worse at various points in time. The trial also measured how many people's disease responded to treatment, and how participants rated their own quality of life and itch symptoms. The reported data shows that in the KW-0761 group, 55.3% of participants had not experienced disease progression at the earliest reported time point, compared with 28.8% in the vorinostat group. At later time points those figures were reported as dropping to 38.3% vs 15.3%, then 28.0% vs 7.2%, then 14.1% vs 7.2%, and finally 4.7% vs 7.2%. For the secondary outcome of overall response rate, the reported data shows 52 participants in the KW-0761 group had a confirmed response (22 complete, 30 partial), compared with 9 in the vorinostat group (7 complete, 2 partial). On the skin-related quality-of-life scale (Skindex-29), average scores changed by −12.6 in the KW-0761 group and −6.0 in the vorinostat group from their starting points (where a lower score means less impact from skin disease). On a general quality-of-life scale (FACT-G), scores changed by +4.6 versus −2.3 (where higher means better quality of life). For the itch-specific quality-of-life measure, average scores changed by −0.5 in the KW-0761 group and −0.4 in the vorinostat group (where lower means less impact from itch). 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 ↗
NCT00539656 · results posted 3 April 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 3 participants, and all 3 completed the study. It was a single-arm trial, meaning everyone received the same treatment — two cord blood units, where at least one had been expanded (grown in larger quantities in a laboratory setting) before being given to participants. The trial was measuring two main things: whether there were any harmful reactions related to receiving the infusion of these expanded cord blood products, and whether participants' immune systems showed a sign of recovery (called neutrophil engraftment) within 21 days. Neutrophil engraftment refers to the point when a type of infection-fighting white blood cell reaches a stable, low-level threshold in the blood for three days in a row. The reported data shows that none of the 3 participants experienced toxicities (harmful reactions) related to the infusion. For the engraftment measure, the reported data shows two separate figures — 1 participant and 2 participants — though the distinction between these two numbers is not clearly explained in the submitted data. For the secondary outcome, the reported data shows that 1 out of 3 participants died without their condition coming back (relapse) within the first 100 days; this is referred to as non-relapse mortality. It is worth noting that with only 3 participants, this was a very small study, and the numbers reflect only those individuals. 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 ↗
NCT01855750 · results posted 19 March 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01855750) enrolled 419 participants in each of two groups — a total of 838 people — all of whom had a type of blood cancer called lymphoma. One group received ibrutinib combined with a standard chemotherapy regimen called R-CHOP, while the other group received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment) combined with the same R-CHOP chemotherapy. The trial's main goal was to measure "event-free survival" — that is, how long participants went before their disease got worse, came back, required a new treatment, or they died. The reported data shows that for the overall group of participants, the median event-free survival (the point at which half the participants had experienced one of those setbacks) was around 49.6 months in the ibrutinib+R-CHOP group and around 54.8 months in the placebo+R-CHOP group. For a specific sub-group of participants whose cancer was classified as the "activated B-cell" type, the reported median event-free survival was approximately 48.6 months in the ibrutinib+R-CHOP group and 48.2 months in the placebo+R-CHOP group. For progression-free survival (time until the disease worsened or death), the ibrutinib+R-CHOP group had a reported median of 48.6 months, while this figure was not reported for the placebo+R-CHOP group. The proportion of participants who achieved a complete response (no detectable signs of disease) was reported as 67.3% in the ibrutinib+R-CHOP group and 68.0% in the placebo+R-CHOP group. Median overall survival data was not reported for either group. The reported data also shows one quality-of-life measure: the time until participants' lymphoma-related symptoms meaningfully worsened. In the ibrutinib+R-CHOP group this was reported as approximately 11.7 months, compared with approximately 35.0 months in the placebo+R-CHOP group. It is important to note that none of these numbers on their own tell us whether one treatment is better or worse than the other — that requires careful statistical analysis beyond what is presented 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 ↗
NCT02763254 · results posted 12 March 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02763254) enrolled only one participant and was testing a treatment called Baltaleucel-T. The trial was designed to look at two things: the best overall response to the treatment (meaning whether the participant's condition showed a complete or partial improvement over a 12-month follow-up period), and any unwanted or harmful events that occurred during and after treatment. The reported data shows that the one participant who started the trial did not complete it. For the primary outcome — the best overall response to treatment — no results were reported in the submitted data. For the secondary outcome, the reported data shows that one participant experienced adverse events (that is, unwanted or harmful effects that were recorded and monitored). No further breakdown of those events is included in the submitted results. It is worth noting that because only one person was enrolled and the trial was not completed, the data is extremely limited and cannot be used to draw any broader conclusions about the treatment. 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 ↗
NCT02004522 · results posted 8 January 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02004522) compared two treatments — duvelisib and ofatumumab — in people with a type of blood cancer called chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. A total of 160 people were assigned to the duvelisib group and 159 to the ofatumumab group. The main thing the trial was measuring was "progression-free survival" — that is, how long participants went without their disease getting worse or dying from any cause. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in the duvelisib group went 13.3 months before their disease progressed or they died, compared with 9.9 months in the ofatumumab group. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 118 participants in the duvelisib group and 72 in the ofatumumab group showed an overall response (meaning some level of measurable improvement by the study's criteria). When looking at shrinkage of lymph nodes (glands), 136 participants in the duvelisib group and 25 in the ofatumumab group met the criteria for a lymph node response. Among those who did respond, the response lasted a reported average of 11.1 months in the duvelisib group and 9.3 months in the ofatumumab group. The reported data also shows that 56 participants in the duvelisib group and 51 in the ofatumumab group showed improvements in certain blood count measures over at least 60 days. For overall survival — how long participants lived in total — the reported data shows an average of approximately 54.9 months in the duvelisib group and 63.3 months in the ofatumumab group, though the way this figure was calculated and what influenced it is not fully detailed 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 ↗
NCT02055820 · results posted 20 December 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02055820) enrolled participants with a type of blood cancer called diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who had not previously been treated. The trial tested a drug called venetoclax added to one of two standard chemotherapy combinations — known as R-CHOP or G-CHOP — at different doses (200 mg, 400 mg, 600 mg, and 800 mg). It ran in two stages: a first stage to find an appropriate dose (involving 56 people across multiple dose groups) and a second, larger stage to look at responses in a specific group (208 people receiving venetoclax 800 mg with R-CHOP, of whom 159 completed that stage). The reported data shows that in the first (dose-finding) stage, the number of participants who experienced what the trial defined as a "dose-limiting toxicity" — meaning a serious side effect serious enough to potentially limit the dose — was small across groups: 1 person in the 200 mg R-CHOP group, 0 in the 400 mg R-CHOP group, 1 in the 600 mg R-CHOP group, 0 in the 800 mg R-CHOP group, 2 in the 200 mg G-CHOP group, 1 each in the 400 mg and 600 mg G-CHOP groups, and 0 in both 800 mg G-CHOP groups. For the main second stage, the reported data shows that 68.2% of all previously untreated DLBCL participants in the 800 mg venetoclax plus R-CHOP group had a "complete response" (meaning scans showed no detectable signs of the cancer) as assessed by an independent review committee. Among the subgroup whose cancer had a specific protein pattern (called "double-expressor" DLBCL), the reported complete response rate was 66.7%. The trial also measured how venetoclax moved through the body (its blood levels over time). The reported data shows that at higher doses, the peak blood concentration and overall drug exposure tended to be greater, with the 800 mg G-CHOP group showing the highest recorded peak concentration of 1.54 micrograms per millilitre and the highest overall drug exposure. The time it took to reach peak blood levels was broadly similar across groups, ranging from about 4 to 6.6 hours. 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 ↗
NCT00475644 · results posted 5 November 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 66 people, all of whom received at least one dose of the study drug, enzastaurin. Fifty-three participants completed the study, while 13 did not. The trial was a single-group study — meaning everyone received the same treatment with no comparison group — and it was designed to measure how often tumours responded to enzastaurin, as well as how long those responses lasted and how quickly they appeared. The reported data shows that 26.4% of participants had their tumour shrink or disappear to a degree that met the trial's definition of a response (which included complete disappearance of the tumour, near-complete disappearance, or a significant partial shrinkage). For the time-based measures: on average, it took about 148 days from the start of the study for a response to be recorded in those who responded; the average length of time a response lasted was reported as approximately 677 days; and the average time before the disease progressed or a participant died — known as progression-free survival — was reported as approximately 551 days. Regarding a protein marker called PKC-β2, the reported data shows 1 participant with high expression and 5 participants with low expression had a response, though the data for the remaining participants was not reported in a way that allows a fuller breakdown. 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 ↗
NCT01024010 · results posted 18 September 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 82 people with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) across two groups. Forty-eight participants received a combination of three medicines called PCO (Arm A), and 34 received those same three medicines followed by an additional medicine called ofatumumab (Arm B, labelled PCO+O). All participants who started the trial were recorded as having completed it — none were listed as having dropped out. The trial was measuring, among other things, how many people achieved a "complete response" (where certain blood and physical exam measures all return to near-normal levels) in Arm A, and how many people in each arm went 18 months without needing further treatment. The reported data shows that in Arm A, 46% of participants were recorded as achieving a complete response. When looking at going 18 months without needing further treatment for CLL or dying, the reported figure was 87.5% for Arm A and 94.1% for Arm B. For the secondary outcome of overall response rate — which counts both complete and partial responses (a partial response meaning meaningful but not full improvement in measured values) — the reported figures were 96% for Arm A and 97% for Arm B. In Arm B only, 25% of participants were recorded as showing a deeper level of response after receiving the ofatumumab consolidation phase compared to before it. The reported data also shows that the median time before participants in Arm A needed further treatment (or died) was 56.6 months; this figure was not reported for Arm B. 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 ↗
NCT02038946 · results posted 12 June 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 92 people, all of whom received the drug nivolumab. Eighty of those participants completed the study, while 12 did not. The trial was looking at how often participants' lymphoma responded to the treatment — specifically, whether tumours shrank or disappeared — as judged both by an independent review panel looking at scans and by the treating doctors themselves. The reported data shows that when an independent panel reviewed the scans, 4.3% of participants had their disease respond (meaning tumours shrank or disappeared to a meaningful degree). Breaking that down further, 1.1% of participants were reported to have had a complete disappearance of detectable disease, while 3.3% were reported to have had a significant but partial reduction. Among those whose disease did respond according to the independent panel, the reported data shows the response lasted a median of around 10.94 months (median meaning half lasted longer, half shorter — this figure was not reported for the full group). A separate measure called progression-free survival — roughly, how long participants went without their disease getting worse — had a reported median of 2.20 months. When the treating doctors (rather than the independent panel) assessed responses, the reported overall response rate was higher, at 10.9% of participants. 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 ↗
NCT02780167 · results posted 16 May 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02780167) looked at a medicine called PF-04965842 (also known as abrocitinib) for people with atopic dermatitis, a type of eczema. A total of 267 people took part across five groups: one group received a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient), and the other four groups received different daily doses of PF-04965842 — 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, or 200 mg. The trial ran for 12 weeks and measured things like how clear participants' skin appeared to a doctor, how much the affected skin area changed, and how much itching participants reported. The reported data shows that for the main measure — the proportion of participants whose skin was rated "clear" or "almost clear" by a doctor at 12 weeks, with at least a 2-point improvement on a 0–4 scale — the figures were: 6.3% in the placebo group, 8.2% in the 10 mg group, 12.3% in the 30 mg group, 27.8% in the 100 mg group, and 44.5% in the 200 mg group. For one of the secondary measures, a scoring system that captures both the severity and the body surface area affected by eczema (called the EASI score) showed a percentage change from the starting point at 12 weeks of approximately −35% for placebo, −31% for 10 mg, −41% for 30 mg, −59% for 100 mg, and −83% for 200 mg (a negative number meaning the score went down from the starting point). The reported data for itching and other time points showed a range of figures across the groups; some of the data entries in the submitted results appeared incomplete, so not all time-point breakdowns could be fully described 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 ↗
NCT01849263 · results posted 26 April 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 40 participants, all of whom were in a single group receiving a treatment called ibrutinib. All 40 participants completed the study. The trial was primarily measuring the "overall response rate" — that is, the proportion of participants whose disease showed a meaningful reduction (either a partial response, meaning the tumour burden shrank by at least half, or a complete response, meaning all detectable signs of disease disappeared) at any point during treatment, based on established lymphoma assessment criteria. The reported data shows that the overall response rate was 0.375, meaning that just over one-third of participants (approximately 15 out of 40) were recorded as having a partial or complete response during treatment. Among those who did respond, the reported data shows the response lasted a median of 13.9 months — that is, half of responders maintained their response for longer than this and half for less. The time from starting the trial to when a response was first recorded had a median of 4.6 months. Progression-free survival — the time from starting the trial until the disease worsened or a participant died — was reported as a median of 14.0 months. The time until participants started a subsequent (follow-up) treatment for their condition was reported as a median of 17.7 months. Overall survival — the total time participants lived from the start of the trial — was 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 ↗
NCT02704689 · results posted 24 April 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a spinal procedure called AccuLIF TL, which involves placing a device between the vertebrae in the lower back. Nine people started the trial and six completed it, with three not finishing. The trial was set up to measure changes in spinal alignment (specifically the curve of the spine at the treated level) and the height of the space between the vertebrae, both before and after the procedure, using X-rays. The reported data shows that no numbers were submitted for either of the two main (primary) outcome measures — the spinal curve angle and the disc height measurements. This means those key results were not reported in the data available on ClinicalTrials.gov. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that surgery lasted an average of 192 minutes, patients stayed in hospital for an average of 4 days, and average blood loss during surgery was 383 cc (roughly equivalent to about one and a half cups of fluid). No figures were reported for the number of complications linked to the procedure or device. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial with only nine participants, and because the primary outcome numbers were not reported, the data available is incomplete. The reported data shows only a limited picture of what occurred during and immediately after the procedure for this small group of people. 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 ↗
NCT00884286 · results posted 29 March 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medicine called plitidepsin (also known as Aplidin®) given by a one-hour drip (infusion) once a week for three weeks out of every four-week cycle. It was given to people whose aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) had come back or stopped responding to previous treatment. A total of 67 people took part — 34 in a group with a specific type called non-cutaneous PTCL, and 33 in a group with other types of lymphoma. The main thing the trial was measuring was the "objective response rate" — that is, how many participants showed a measurable reduction or disappearance of their cancer according to standard criteria. The reported data shows that, across both groups combined, 6 out of the total participants were recorded as having some form of measurable response (including complete disappearance, unconfirmed complete disappearance, or partial reduction of the cancer). For the PTCL group specifically, the reported data shows that the time from starting treatment to first signs of a response was around 7.5 weeks, and that responses lasted a median (middle value) of about 2.2 months. The time until the disease progressed (got worse) was reported as approximately 1.6 months for the PTCL group and 1.3 months for the other lymphoma group. The time until participants moved on to a different treatment was reported as roughly 3.8 months in the PTCL group and 1.9 months in the other lymphoma group. The reported data also shows that only 2 participants out of all 67 were recorded as having completed the study, with the remainder not completing it — though the specific reasons for not completing were not detailed in the data provided here. Some individual breakdown figures within the response categories were listed in the data but were not labelled in enough detail to report separately without risking misrepresentation, so those specific numbers have not been described 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 ↗
NCT02187861 · results posted 13 October 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 163 participants across four groups. Nine people took part in an early safety check group receiving venetoclax plus a chemotherapy combination called BR (bendamustine and rituximab). The remaining participants were split into three main arms: 52 people received venetoclax plus rituximab (no chemotherapy), 51 received venetoclax plus BR, and 51 received BR alone. The trial's main goal was to measure how many participants achieved what is called a "complete metabolic response" — meaning a specialised body scan (PET scan) showed no detectable sign of active disease — assessed by an independent review panel at a set point during treatment. The reported data shows the following results for the primary measure (complete metabolic response on PET scan, assessed by the independent panel): in the early safety check group (venetoclax + BR), 55.6% of participants reached this response; in the venetoclax + rituximab group, 11.5% did; in the venetoclax + BR group, 74.5% did; and in the BR-alone group, 70.6% did. For the secondary measures — which looked at response at a later one-year timepoint and also used a different type of scan (CT scan) — the reported percentages were generally lower across all groups at the one-year mark, ranging from roughly 17% to 56% depending on the group and assessment method. Complete response rates measured by CT scan ranged from approximately 6% to 44% across the groups at the earlier assessment point, and from approximately 6% to 56% at a later point, depending on the group and who did the assessment. 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 ↗
NCT00438802 · results posted 2 October 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 23 people in total, split across three groups receiving different dose levels of the study treatment: 6 people in Dose Level 1, 8 in Dose Level 2, and 9 in Dose Level 3. All 23 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring two main things: the highest dose of the treatment that could be given without too many serious side effects (called the Maximum Tolerated Dose, or MTD), and how many participants experienced a serious side effect serious enough to limit the dose (called a Dose Limiting Toxicity, or DLT). A secondary measure looked at how participants' lymphoma responded to treatment, using standard criteria for complete response (all detectable signs of disease disappearing) and partial response (the disease shrinking by more than half). The reported data shows that one participant in Dose Level 2 and one participant in Dose Level 3 experienced a dose-limiting toxicity, while no participants in Dose Level 1 did. Based on these results, the Maximum Tolerated Dose was reported as 0.30 mg/kg. For the secondary outcome measuring clinical response, the reported data shows that in Dose Level 1, one participant had a complete response and two had a partial response. In Dose Level 2, no complete responses were reported but one partial response was recorded. In Dose Level 3, no complete or partial responses were reported. 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 ↗
NCT00348140 · results posted 5 September 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,468 people across three groups: 487 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient), 490 received a low dose (2 mg) of an extended-release form of rosiglitazone (RSG XR), and 491 received a higher dose (8 mg) of the same drug. The trial ran for 48 weeks and was measuring changes in two things: scores on a cognitive test called the ADAS-Cog (which assesses memory, comprehension, and orientation, scored 0–70 where higher means greater difficulty), and scores on a global functioning assessment called the CDR-SB (scored 0–18 where higher means greater impairment). The trial also looked at whether a gene variant called APOE ε4 — which is linked to Alzheimer's risk — made any difference to the results, examining three subgroups: people without that gene variant, people with at most one copy of it, and the full group of all participants. The reported data shows that across all groups, scores on both scales went up over 48 weeks — meaning all groups showed some worsening on average, which is not unexpected in an Alzheimer's trial. For the ADAS-Cog cognitive test, in the full population the placebo group's scores increased by 3.9 points on average, while both the 2 mg and 8 mg RSG XR groups increased by 3.8 points. In the group without the APOE ε4 gene variant, the placebo group's scores rose by 3.2 points, compared with 3.5 points for the 2 mg group and 4.0 points for the 8 mg group. For the global functioning scale (CDR-SB), the reported data shows very similar changes across all three treatment groups in every subgroup examined — differences of around 0.1 points or less between placebo and either active dose. 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 ↗
NCT00355199 · results posted 10 August 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 246 people across two groups — 120 in the R-HDS group and 126 in the R-CHOP 14 group — with 113 and 122 completing the study respectively. The trial was measuring how well two different chemotherapy treatment approaches performed in people with lymphoma (a type of blood cancer), looking mainly at how long participants went without their disease getting worse or their treatment being stopped for any reason. The reported data shows that for the main measure — the percentage of people who had not experienced a treatment setback after three years — 65% of the R-HDS group and 62% of the R-CHOP 14 group reached that point. For secondary measures, the number of people who achieved a complete remission (meaning no detectable signs of disease) was 86 in the R-HDS group and 95 in the R-CHOP 14 group. Among those who reached complete remission, the reported data shows that 91% in the R-HDS group and 79% in the R-CHOP 14 group remained disease-free at three years. For overall survival at three years (still alive regardless of cause), the figures were 77% for R-HDS and 74% for R-CHOP 14. The trial also measured serious side effects (graded III or IV, meaning more severe reactions), with the R-HDS group generally reporting higher percentages across several categories compared to the R-CHOP 14 group — for example, one category showed 84% versus 34%. Data for the measure looking at how well R-HDS worked as a follow-up treatment for people who did not respond to R-CHOP 14 was not reported in the submitted 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00790036 · results posted 12 July 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 372 people who received the study drug everolimus (also called RAD001) and 370 people who received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was looking at people who had been treated for lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) and was measuring whether everolimus, taken after initial treatment, made a difference to three things: how long people stayed free of their disease returning (called disease-free survival), how long people lived overall (overall survival), and how long people survived without dying specifically from lymphoma (lymphoma-specific survival). Fewer people in the everolimus group completed the full study period compared to the placebo group (177 versus 249). The reported data shows that for the main outcome — disease-free survival — 77.8% of people in the everolimus group and 77.0% of people in the placebo group had not experienced a relapse or death at the measured point in time. For overall survival, the reported data shows a series of figures recorded across different time points: the everolimus group ranged from 90.7% down to 80.3%, while the placebo group ranged from 88.3% down to 77.4%. For lymphoma-specific survival (deaths specifically due to lymphoma), the reported figures for the everolimus group ranged from 94.9% down to 89.4%, compared to 90.5% down to 85.4% in the placebo group. The data does not specify exactly which time points (for example, one year, two years) these individual figures correspond to, so a direct time-by-time comparison cannot be made from the information reported. 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 ↗
NCT01220297 · results posted 5 June 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 3 participants, all in a single group receiving a combination of two medicines — sirolimus and MMF (mycophenolate mofetil) — to try to prevent a complication called Graft-versus-Host Disease (GvHD). GvHD is a condition that can occur after a stem cell or bone marrow transplant, where the donated cells attack the recipient's body. The trial was split into two sub-groups based on the type of chemotherapy given before the transplant. None of the 3 participants completed the trial. The reported data shows that the primary thing being measured was the number of participants who developed moderate-to-severe GvHD (graded 2 to 4) within 100 days of their transplant. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, in the sub-group that received one type of chemotherapy beforehand (BCNU+VP16+Cyclo), 0 out of the participants developed this level of GvHD, while in the other sub-group (FTBI+Cyclo), 1 participant did. For the more severe GvHD category (grades 3 to 4), the same pattern was reported — 0 in the first sub-group and 1 in the second. A liver-related complication called veno-occlusive disease was also tracked; 0 participants in the first sub-group and 1 in the second were reported to have developed it. The reported data shows that for disease-free survival — meaning living without the disease returning — 0 participants were recorded in either sub-group. For overall survival, a figure was only reported for the FTBI+Cyclo sub-group, with a value of 405 days noted; no corresponding figure was reported for the other sub-group. Given that only 3 people took part and none completed the trial, these numbers are extremely limited. 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 ↗
NCT02038933 · results posted 30 May 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 121 participants who received the drug nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). All 121 participants were recorded as not having completed the study. The trial was looking at people with a type of blood cancer called lymphoma, and participants fell into two groups: those who had previously undergone a stem cell transplant that had not worked ("ASCT-failed," 58 participants implied by the data groupings) and those who were not suitable for a stem cell transplant ("ASCT-ineligible"). The main thing being measured was the proportion of participants whose cancer showed a meaningful reduction or disappearance on scans — called the "objective response rate." The reported data shows that, among the ASCT-failed group, approximately 10.3% of participants had their cancer respond (shrink or disappear) according to independent scan review, compared with 2.9% in the ASCT-ineligible group. When looking specifically at complete disappearance of disease signs on scans, the reported figures were 3.4% for the ASCT-failed group and 0% for the ASCT-ineligible group. Partial reductions in cancer were reported in 6.9% and 2.9% of participants respectively. The reported data also shows how long responses lasted for those who did respond. In the ASCT-failed group, responses (including both partial and complete) lasted a reported median (middle value) of around 11.4 months, and partial responses alone lasted around 6.6 months. In the ASCT-ineligible group, responses lasted a reported median of around 8.3 months. The duration of complete remission in the ASCT-failed group was listed as not available in the reported data, and no figure was reported for the ASCT-ineligible group's complete remission duration. 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 ↗
NCT01026220 · results posted 30 May 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01026220) enrolled 166 children or young people with Hodgkin Lymphoma (a type of cancer affecting the lymph system). All participants first received an induction chemotherapy regimen called ABVE-PC, and 141 completed that phase. Based on how well their cancer responded to this initial treatment, participants were then assigned to one of two follow-up treatment groups — 81 to Regimen I (for those whose cancer responded more quickly) and 80 to Regimen II (for those whose cancer responded more slowly). The trial was primarily measuring "second-event-free survival" — roughly, the likelihood of not experiencing a second serious setback such as the cancer returning again or a new cancer developing after an initial setback — and also monitoring for deaths directly caused by treatment. The reported data shows that, for the overall group, the probability of second-event-free survival was reported as 0.91 (meaning roughly 91 out of every 100 participants did not experience a second serious setback during the follow-up period). When this was broken down by the two follow-up treatment groups, the reported probability was 0.94 for Regimen I and 0.88 for Regimen II. The number of deaths directly attributed to treatment was reported as zero. For a separate but related measure called "event-free survival" (the chance of not experiencing any first serious setback such as the cancer returning, a new cancer, or death), the reported probability across the whole group was 0.81. Relapse-free survival — the chance of the cancer not returning — was reported as 0.82 overall, 0.83 for one subgroup, and 0.79 for another. The reported data also shows some additional findings looking at whether an early scan (called a PET scan) after just one round of chemotherapy could identify different groups of participants. The probability figures reported for those subgroups ranged from 0.82 to 0.90, though the trial notes this was exploratory — meaning it was intended to inform future research rather than draw firm conclusions. It is important to note that these numbers describe what was observed in this specific group of trial participants, under carefully controlled conditions, and do not tell us how any individual person might respond to these treatments. 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 ↗
NCT00381680 · results posted 12 May 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled a total of 275 participants — 206 in the standard vincristine (a chemotherapy medicine) dosing group (Regimen A) and 69 in the higher-dose vincristine group (Regimen B). The trial was studying treatment for leukaemia that had come back after initial treatment, and was looking at how many patients remained free of further disease events over time, as well as measuring levels of residual disease in the body and side effects related to nerve damage. The reported data shows that among patients in Regimen A who did not go on to have a stem cell transplant, 66% were free of further disease events at three years. When looking at patients in both groups who had bone marrow relapse at least 36 months after their original diagnosis, the reported three-year event-free rates varied across different subgroups — ranging from around 33% to 89% depending on the group and subgroup examined. For a measure called "minimal residual disease" (meaning the amount of leukaemia cells still detectable), the reported data shows that after the first treatment block, around 51% of Regimen A patients and 42% of Regimen B patients had levels below a very low threshold (less than 0.01%); by the end of the third treatment block, those figures rose to approximately 81% and 89% respectively. Regarding nerve-related side effects, the reported data shows that 17.3% of patients in one group and 44.4% in another developed at least one episode of moderate-to-severe nerve problems, though the data as submitted does not clearly separate which figure belongs to which group. Results for the gene expression profile outcome 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 ↗
NCT01732913 · results posted 11 May 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01732913) enrolled a total of 295 people with a type of slow-growing blood cancer called indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either idelalisib combined with rituximab (198 people) or a placebo (an inactive treatment) combined with rituximab (97 people). The trial was designed to measure how long people went without their cancer getting worse, as well as a range of other outcomes including how many people responded to treatment, how their lymph nodes (small glands in the body involved in fighting infection) responded, how many achieved a complete response, and how long people lived overall. The reported data shows that, unfortunately, no numerical results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for any of the outcome measures — including the main measure of how long people went without their cancer progressing, as well as all of the secondary measures such as overall response rate, lymph node response rate, complete response rate, and overall survival. In terms of trial completion, 42 participants in the idelalisib plus rituximab group and 28 in the placebo plus rituximab group were recorded as having completed the study, while the majority — 156 and 69 respectively — did not complete it, though the reasons for this were not detailed in the submitted data. Because no measurement figures were provided in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, it is not possible to describe what the trial found in numerical terms. 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 ↗
NCT01732926 · results posted 11 May 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 475 people with a type of slow-growing blood cancer called indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Participants were divided into two groups: 320 people received idelalisib combined with two chemotherapy medicines (bendamustine and rituximab), while 155 people received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment) combined with the same two chemotherapy medicines. The trial was measuring how long people went without their cancer getting worse (called "progression-free survival"), as well as how many people's cancer responded to treatment and how long people lived overall. The reported data shows that no numerical results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for any of the outcome measures — including progression-free survival, overall response rate, complete response rate, lymph node response rate, or overall survival. This means that figures for these measurements were not reported in the structured results data available on the registry. Of the participants who started the trial, 53 people in the idelalisib group and 45 people in the placebo group were recorded as having completed it, with the remaining participants noted as not completing the trial; however, no outcome measurement numbers accompanied these figures. Because no outcome data was submitted for either group across any of the planned measures, it is not possible to describe what the trial found in terms of numbers. The reported data shows only that the trial took place and recorded participation figures, but the specific results were not available in the registry entry. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00151320 · results posted 7 April 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 76 participants, and all 76 completed the study with no drop-outs reported. The trial had a single treatment arm, meaning everyone received the same treatment — there was no comparison group. The main thing the trial was measuring was the **Overall Response Rate (ORR)**, which is simply the percentage of participants whose condition showed a measurable response during treatment. The reported data shows that the ORR was measured separately for two groups of patients: those with a type of lymphoma called untreated DLBCL (Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma) and those with untreated MCL (Mantle Cell Lymphoma). For the DLBCL group, the reported response rate was **88%**, and for the MCL group it was **81%**. No secondary outcome measures or additional data were included in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. It is worth noting that because there was only one treatment group and no control or comparison group, these numbers on their own do not tell us how the treatment compares to other options. No safety data or detailed breakdown of individual responses was included in the reported 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 ↗
NCT01481129 · results posted 7 April 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 22 people with a type of blood cancer called diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). All 22 participants completed the study. The trial was testing a drug called MK2206 (an AKT inhibitor — a type of medicine that targets a specific protein involved in cancer cell growth) and was primarily looking at how many participants showed a measurable reduction in their cancer after four months of treatment. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — the number of participants whose cancer shrank or disappeared according to standard measurement criteria — was zero out of 22. For the secondary outcomes, the reported median overall survival (meaning the midpoint survival time across the group) was 9.6 months. The median progression-free survival (the midpoint time before the cancer was recorded as getting worse) was reported as 1.71 months. The data was not reported for duration of response, which is expected given that no responses were recorded. Additionally, the reported data shows that 19 out of 22 participants had side effects recorded and assessed using a standard medical grading tool called CTCAE version 4.0, though the specific nature or severity of those side effects was not broken down further in the submitted 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 ↗
NCT00594815 · results posted 6 April 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 52 adults who had a normally functioning immune system and had been newly diagnosed with a type of brain cancer called primary CNS lymphoma (a cancer that starts in the lymph tissue of the brain or spinal cord). Of the 52 people who started the trial, 43 completed it, and 9 did not. The trial was measuring two things: how many participants experienced side effects related to the treatment, and how many participants were still alive without their cancer getting worse after two years. The reported data shows that all 52 participants who took part experienced at least one acute (short-term) treatment-related adverse event — that is, a side effect that occurred during or shortly after treatment. Regarding the two-year progression-free survival figure — meaning the proportion of participants whose cancer had not grown or spread and who were still alive at the two-year mark — the reported data shows this was 57% of participants. No other outcome data was reported in the submitted 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00025259 · results posted 7 March 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,734 participants across seven treatment groups, all of whom had Hodgkin lymphoma (a type of blood cancer). The trial was designed to look at whether treatment could be tailored based on how well patients responded early on — for example, some groups received chemotherapy alone, while others also received radiation therapy. The main thing the trial was measuring was "event-free survival," which means the probability that a participant went a certain period of time without their disease coming back or getting worse, without developing a new cancer, and without dying. The reported data shows that the event-free survival probabilities (expressed as a number between 0 and 1, where 1 would mean 100% of participants had no such events) ranged from 0.70 to 0.89 across the seven groups. The group of patients who had already been off therapy before being called back recorded a figure of 0.89, while most of the main treatment groups came in between 0.84 and 0.87. The group whose disease progressed early had the lowest figure at 0.70. For overall survival (the probability of still being alive at follow-up), the reported figures were higher across the board, ranging from 0.93 to 0.98 in the groups where this was measured; data for one group (Arm V) was not reported for this measure. The reported data also shows that, when looking at disease response at the end of treatment, the large majority of participants in most groups achieved a complete or very good partial response. In terms of serious side effects (grade 3 or 4 non-blood-related toxicities), the numbers of participants who experienced these ranged from 10 to 216 depending on group size and treatment received. 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 ↗
NCT02227108 · results posted 27 February 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a drug called moxetumomab pasudotox (given at a dose of 40 micrograms per kilogram of body weight) in people with a type of blood cancer called relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) or a related condition called B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma — meaning cancers that had come back or stopped responding to previous treatment. A total of 32 people were enrolled, 30 received the treatment, and only 1 participant was recorded as completing the study, with 31 not completing it. The reported data shows that the main thing the trial was measuring — the proportion of participants who achieved what researchers called a "composite complete response" (meaning no detectable signs of disease by set medical criteria) — was approximately 10.7%. For a related measure that also required a specific laboratory test (called MRD-negativity, a very sensitive check for remaining cancer cells) to come back clear, the reported figure was 0%. The broader "overall response rate," which also counted people who had a partial response (some reduction in disease but not full disappearance), was reported at approximately 28.6%. Among all participants, the reported data shows that around 39.3% had their disease progress (get worse) during the study, while approximately 21.4% had stable disease, 17.9% had a partial response, and 10.7% had a complete response by best overall response measures. The median time to any response was reported as approximately 0.66 months. Data on bone marrow blast levels (a measure of how much cancer is present in the bone marrow) was not fully broken down in a way that allows plain reporting of individual categories here, but the figures were reported across multiple sub-groups 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 ↗
NCT01325701 · results posted 16 February 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01325701) tested a drug called PCI-32765 (also known as ibrutinib) in people with a type of blood cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A total of 78 people took part — 70 received a daily dose of 560 mg and 8 received a daily dose of 840 mg. The trial's main goal was to measure how many participants showed a meaningful shrinkage or disappearance of their cancer (called an "overall response"), and secondary goals included tracking unwanted side effects and measuring how the drug moved through the body. The reported data shows that, for the primary goal, 24.3% of participants in the 560 mg group and 12.5% in the 840 mg group showed an overall response (meaning their cancer either fully or partially responded based on set criteria assessed by their doctor). For the secondary goal looking at side effects, all 70 participants in the 560 mg group and all 8 in the 840 mg group experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted health event recorded during the study) — though the data as reported does not break down the nature or severity of those events. The trial also measured how much of the drug and one of its breakdown products were present in participants' blood over 24 hours; the reported figures were around 1,285–1,485 ng\*h/mL for the 560 mg group and 1,337–1,671 ng\*h/mL for the 840 mg group, with the variation reflecting measurements taken at different time points during the study. 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 ↗
NCT01471782 · results posted 8 February 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial tested a drug called blinatumomab in people with a type of blood cancer (acute lymphoblastic leukaemia). The trial had two parts: a Phase 1 part, which tested different doses to find a safe starting range, and a Phase 2 part, which looked at a specific dosing approach in more detail. In total, 93 people took part across all groups — 5, 7, 5, 6, and 26 people in the various Phase 1 dose groups, and 44 people in the Phase 2 group. The trial measured things like serious side effects at each dose level, whether participants' leukaemia went into remission (meaning signs of cancer in the bone marrow dropped below a certain level), how long that remission lasted, and how long participants survived overall. The reported data shows that in the Phase 1 dose-finding part, the number of participants who experienced what the researchers defined as a "dose-limiting toxicity" (a serious side effect severe enough to set the upper limit of a dose) was: 0 out of 5 at the lowest dose, 1 out of 7 at the next dose, 2 out of 5 at the highest fixed dose, and 1 out of 6 in a step-up dosing group. For remission within the first two treatment cycles, the reported percentages ranged across groups — 20% in the lowest dose group, about 43% in the 15 µg group, 20% in the 30 µg group, 33% in one step-up group, 50% in another Phase 1 step-up group, approximately 32% in the Phase 2 group, and about 39% when Phase 1 and Phase 2 step-up groups were combined. Adverse events (unwanted health changes during the trial) were recorded in all participants across every group. The reported data shows that among participants who did achieve remission, the median time before the leukaemia returned was reported as 10.3 months for the combined Phase 1 group, 3.4 months for the Phase 2 group, and 5.2 months when both Phase 1 and Phase 2 step-up groups were combined. Median overall survival — meaning the point at which half of participants in each group had died and half had not — was reported as 6.5 months for the combined Phase 1 group, 8.2 months for the Phase 2 group, and 7.5 months for the combined step-up groups. Blood concentration levels of the drug were also measured in Phase 1 participants and rose as the dose increased, though the full detail of those figures was not reported for all 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00073918 · results posted 27 January 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 111 participants, all of whom received a combination of a radio-labelled monoclonal antibody (a specially tagged protein designed to target specific cells) and chemotherapy. Of those 111 people, 107 completed the study and 4 did not. The trial was measuring how long participants went without their condition getting worse, how many were still alive after five years, how many showed a response to treatment, and how often certain side effects occurred. The reported data shows that 56% of participants had not experienced disease progression (worsening of their condition) at the three-year mark — this was the main figure the trial set out to measure. For the additional measures, the reported data shows that 72% of participants were still alive at five years. Approximately 41.4% of participants were recorded as having shown a response to the treatment. Regarding side effects, the reported data shows that 9 events of serious (grade 3–4) non-blood-related side effects were recorded across the group. It is worth noting that this trial had only one group — there was no separate comparison group receiving a different or no treatment — so these figures reflect what was observed in participants receiving this particular combination only, without a direct comparison point within the study itself. 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 ↗
NCT00866307 · results posted 7 December 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00866307) enrolled 104 participants in total during the induction phase. After that phase, 84 participants moved forward, and they were then split into two groups for the next stage (consolidation and maintenance): 54 participants went into Group A (labelled "High Risk-Average") and 30 into Group B (labelled "High Risk-High"). The trial was looking at two things specifically for Group B: how long it took patients to move from one treatment stage to the next, and how many doses of a medicine called pegaspargase patients were able to receive during treatment. The reported data shows that for the first measurement — called the "safety outcome" — 50% of Group B participants moved from the start of the consolidation stage to the start of the maintenance stage in less than 49 weeks. For the second measurement — called the "feasibility outcome" — 53.3% of Group B participants received at least 8 out of the 12 to 14 planned doses of pegaspargase across the consolidation and related treatment periods. No outcome figures were reported for Group A, as the trial protocol specified that only Group B would be measured on these two outcomes. It is also worth noting that 16 out of 30 Group B participants did not complete the consolidation and maintenance phase, though the reasons were not detailed in the data provided 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 ↗
NCT01186458 · results posted 24 October 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 4 participants, all of whom received a combination of three medicines: fludarabine, Velcade (bortezomib), and rituximab. The trial was designed for people with follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a type of slow-growing blood cancer — whose disease had come back or had stopped responding to previous treatment. Three of the four participants completed the trial, and one did not. The trial set out to measure how many people responded to the treatment, how long they went without their disease getting worse, and what kinds of side effects occurred. The reported data shows that for the two main outcome measures — overall response rate (how many people's cancer responded to the treatment) and survival-related measures — no numerical results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures are not available. For the side-effect (toxicity) outcome, the reported data shows a total count of adverse events (unwanted health events that occurred during the trial) broken down by severity grade. Across the four participants, 122 grade-1 events were recorded (the mildest level), 77 grade-2 events, 35 grade-3 events, 9 grade-4 events, and 1 grade-5 event were reported, with 0 events in a further category. The data for the fourth outcome — exploring how fludarabine and Velcade interact at a biological level — was also not submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. It is worth noting that with only 4 people enrolled, this was a very small trial, and the absence of response and survival numbers limits what can be understood from the submitted 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 ↗
NCT01317901 · results posted 6 October 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 12 people in total, split into two groups of 6. One group received a dose of 10 mg/kg of an experimental medicine called TRU-016 combined with two other medicines (bendamustine and rituximab), while the other group received a higher dose of 20 mg/kg of TRU-016 with the same two medicines. The trial was measuring how participants' bodies responded to treatment — specifically whether their lymphoma showed signs of shrinking or disappearing, judged using scans, clinical checks, and bone marrow tests. The reported data shows that in the 10 mg/kg group, out of 6 participants: 3 showed a complete response (meaning no detectable signs of disease could be found), 1 showed a partial response (meaning the disease appeared to shrink by at least half), 1 had another recorded outcome, and 1 had a further recorded outcome. In the 20 mg/kg group, out of 6 participants: 2 showed a complete response, 4 showed a partial response, and none fell into the remaining two outcome categories. All 12 participants who started the study also completed it, according to the reported figures. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial with only 6 people in each group, and the data as submitted does not include labels for all four response categories beyond complete and partial response, so the full breakdown cannot be described with certainty from the available information. 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 ↗
NCT00329030 · results posted 10 June 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00329030) enrolled 224 adults with lymphoma — 111 in the B-BEAM group and 113 in the R-BEAM group. The two groups received different conditioning treatments (chemotherapy regimens) before a stem cell transplant. The main thing the trial was measuring was "progression-free survival" — that is, the percentage of participants who were still alive and had not had their lymphoma come back or needed further treatment after a set period of time. The reported data shows that for the primary measure of progression-free survival, approximately 53% of participants in the B-BEAM group and 57% in the R-BEAM group had not experienced a setback at an earlier time point, with those figures shifting to around 49% for both groups at a later follow-up point. For overall survival (whether participants were still alive), the reported figures were approximately 69% (B-BEAM) and 74% (R-BEAM) at one time point, and around 60% (B-BEAM) and 66% (R-BEAM) at a later point. The reported data shows that the proportion of participants whose lymphoma came back or progressed was approximately 40% in both groups at one time point, rising to around 44% (B-BEAM) and 47% (R-BEAM) later. For tumour response (complete or partial response to treatment), figures of approximately 70% (B-BEAM) and 71% (R-BEAM) were reported at one time point, and 49% and 44% respectively at another. Blood count recovery measures — including platelet recovery and broader blood function — were also tracked, with broadly similar figures reported across both groups, though the data does not specify the exact time points for each measurement pair. 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 ↗
NCT01722487 · results posted 4 May 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 269 people in total — 136 were given ibrutinib and 133 were given chlorambucil (an older tablet-form treatment). The trial was designed to compare the two treatments in people with a type of blood cancer called chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). The main thing researchers were tracking was "progression-free survival" — meaning how long participants went without their disease getting worse or dying. Several secondary measurements were also taken, including overall survival, the proportion of people whose disease responded to treatment, and whether certain blood count levels (haemoglobin and platelets) improved over time. The reported data shows that for progression-free survival, the median time (the point at which half the participants had experienced worsening disease) was reported as 18.9 months for the chlorambucil group. For the ibrutinib group, this figure was listed as "NA" (not available), which typically means the median had not yet been reached at the time the data was recorded. For overall survival, figures were listed as "NA" for both groups, meaning this data was not reported at the time of submission. For the proportion of participants whose disease responded to treatment, 82.4% in the ibrutinib group and 35.3% in the chlorambucil group were reported as having a response. Regarding haemoglobin improvement, 45.6% of ibrutinib participants and 20.3% of chlorambucil participants showed a sustained improvement across all participants; among those who started with low haemoglobin levels, those figures were 84.3% and 45.5% respectively. For sustained platelet improvement, 27.2% of the ibrutinib group and 11.3% of the chlorambucil group met that measure. 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 ↗
NCT01718691 · results posted 27 April 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 70 people across two groups: 60 people with a type of slow-growing blood cancer called low-grade B-cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, and 10 people with a type called Mantle Cell Lymphoma. The trial was measuring how many participants showed a reduction or disappearance of detectable signs of their cancer after treatment, using three different sets of measurement criteria that doctors use to assess lymphoma responses. The reported data shows the following for the main outcome — the rate of complete response (meaning all detectable signs of disease disappeared) using the 1999 international lymphoma criteria: 67.8% of participants in the low-grade lymphoma group, 70.0% in the Mantle Cell Lymphoma group, and 68.1% across all participants combined. When looking at any measurable response (including partial responses, where disease shrank but did not fully disappear), the reported figures were 96.6%, 90.0%, and 95.7% respectively. Using a different set of 2007 criteria, the complete response figures were 64.4%, 80.0%, and 66.7%, while the overall response figures remained 96.6%, 90.0%, and 95.7%. Under an older 1979 measurement standard, the complete response figures were lower at 22.0%, 40.0%, and 24.6%, and overall response figures were 86.4%, 90.0%, and 87.0%. It is worth noting that the three sets of criteria use different definitions of what counts as a "complete" or "partial" response, which is why the numbers differ across them. The reported data does not tell us how long any responses lasted, and results for individual participants will have varied. 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 ↗
NCT00262860 · results posted 28 March 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 18 participants, all of whom received a combination of two drugs: bortezomib and gemcitabine hydrochloride. Sixteen participants completed the study, while two did not. The trial was measuring how many participants showed a reduction in their cancer (specifically a type of blood cancer called lymphoma) after two rounds of treatment, using CT scans to assess changes in tumour size. The study also tracked changes in the activity of a protein-breakdown system in the blood (called the proteasome) before and after treatment. The reported data shows that out of the 18 participants, 4 showed a measurable response to the treatment according to the scan-based criteria used. The trial also measured changes in proteasome activity — essentially, how much a certain cellular process slowed down after the drugs were given. After the first round of treatment, the reported data shows a 50% reduction in proteasome activity compared to the starting level. After the second round, the reported figure was a 57% reduction compared to the starting level. These numbers simply describe what was measured in the blood samples; they do not on their own indicate whether this change is beneficial or harmful. 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 ↗
NCT00784927 · results posted 8 February 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 36 people, all of whom received the same treatment combination — a group of medicines including lenalidomide, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone. The trial was looking at how tumours responded to this treatment in people with certain types of lymphoma (a cancer of the lymphatic system). Thirty-three of the 36 participants completed the study, and three did not finish. The reported data shows that, among all evaluable participants, around 30% had a complete response (meaning all detectable signs of disease disappeared) and approximately 55% had a partial response (meaning tumours shrank by at least half). The trial also looked separately at a subgroup of participants who had a specific type of lymphoma called Waldenström's macroglobulinemia. In that subgroup, the reported data shows roughly 7% had a complete response and about 67% had a partial response. For one measure called "progression-free survival" — meaning the length of time from joining the trial until the disease started growing again — the reported figure was 38.3 months. Two other time-based measures (overall survival time and time to treatment failure) were listed as "not available" in the submitted data, so those figures were not reported. 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 ↗
NCT01426373 · results posted 14 January 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 165 people, all of whom received injections of deoxycholic acid (at a dose of 2 mg per square centimetre) into the fat under the chin — the area sometimes called a "double chin." Of those 165 participants, 131 completed the trial and 34 did not finish. The trial was primarily set up to record and count any unwanted side effects (called adverse events) that occurred during the study. It also used rating scales — filled in by both the treating clinician and the participant themselves — to measure any changes in the appearance and perceived amount of fat under the chin, as well as how that fat affected the participant's feelings about their appearance. The reported data shows that out of 165 participants, 160 experienced at least one adverse event of any kind. Of those, 158 were considered by the investigator to have a possible link to the study drug, 7 were classed as serious adverse events, and 11 were described as severe (meaning the person was unable to carry out their usual activities). On the rating scales, where a lower score means less visible fat under the chin, clinicians reported an average improvement (reduction) of between 1.3 and 1.4 points on a 5-point scale at the time points measured, while participants themselves reported an average improvement of between 1.2 and 1.3 points. The reported data also shows that around 72–75% of participants had at least a 1-grade improvement on both the clinician and self-reported scales at the same time, while roughly 14–20% showed at least a 2-grade improvement on both scales. On a separate scale measuring how the chin fat affected feelings such as self-consciousness or embarrassment (scored 0–10), participants reported an average reduction of approximately 4.2 to 4.3 points. 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 ↗
NCT00412360 · results posted 21 December 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 224 people in total — 113 in the single umbilical cord blood (UCB) transplant group and 111 in the double UCB transplant group. The trial was comparing two approaches to stem cell transplantation using donated umbilical cord blood: giving patients one cord blood unit versus two. It tracked a range of outcomes including survival, whether the new blood cells successfully established themselves in the body (called "engraftment"), and whether participants developed a condition called graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), where donated cells can react against the recipient's body. The reported data shows that, for overall survival, 73% of participants in the single transplant group and 65% in the double transplant group were alive at the time of reporting. For survival without their original disease returning, the figures were 70% (single) and 64% (double). Regarding engraftment of white blood cells (neutrophils), 89% of the single group and 88% of the double group reached that milestone, taking a reported median (middle value) of 21 days and 23 days respectively. Platelet engraftment was reported in 76% of the single group and 65% of the double group, taking a median of 58 days and 84 days. For graft-versus-host disease, the reported data shows that around 57% (single) and 56% (double) of participants developed any grade of acute GVHD, with more severe acute GVHD (grades III–IV) reported in 13% of the single group and 23% of the double group. Chronic GVHD of any type was reported in 30% (single) and 32% (double) of participants, with the more extensive form seen in 9% and 15% respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01200758 · results posted 5 August 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at rituximab — a medicine used in certain blood cancers — given in two different ways: through a drip into a vein (intravenous, or IV) and by injection under the skin (subcutaneous, or SC). Both forms were given alongside standard chemotherapy. The trial ran in two stages. In Stage I, 64 people received the IV form and 63 received the SC form. In Stage II, 141 received the IV form and 142 received the SC form, making a total of 410 participants across both stages. The reported data shows that in Stage I, the main thing being measured was the amount of rituximab remaining in the bloodstream between doses (called a "trough" level). The IV group had a reported average trough level of 83.1 micrograms per millilitre, while the SC group had a reported average of 134.6 micrograms per millilitre. For Stage II, the main measure was the proportion of participants whose lymphoma showed a measurable response — meaning tumours shrank or disappeared — by the end of the treatment course. The reported data shows 85.1% of the IV group and 80.3% of the SC group met this response measure. The reported data also shows a number of secondary (additional) measures. Looking at both stages combined, overall response was reported at 84.9% for the IV group and 84.4% for the SC group. When looking only at participants whose disease appeared to disappear completely (rather than just shrink), the reported figures in Stage II were 34.8% for the IV group and 28.2% for the SC group. 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 ↗
NCT01305577 · results posted 15 June 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01305577) enrolled 363 people across three groups: 120 received deoxycholic acid injections at a lower dose (1 mg/cm²), 121 received a higher dose (2 mg/cm²), and 122 received a placebo (an inactive injection). The trial was looking at fat under the chin — sometimes called a "double chin" — and measured two main things: how a clinician rated the amount of fat under the chin on a scale from 0 (none) to 4 (extreme), and how satisfied participants said they felt about the appearance of their face and chin on a scale from 0 (extremely dissatisfied) to 6 (extremely satisfied). These ratings were taken 12 weeks after the last treatment. The reported data shows that, for the clinician rating, 59.2% of people in the lower-dose group and 65.3% in the higher-dose group showed at least a one-point improvement on that 0–4 scale, compared with 23.0% in the placebo group. For the satisfaction rating, 53.3% of the lower-dose group and 66.1% of the higher-dose group reported a score of 4 or above (meaning at least "slightly satisfied"), compared with 28.7% in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that the average change in the clinician's fat rating was −0.7 points for the lower dose and −0.9 points for the higher dose, versus −0.2 points for placebo. Average self-reported satisfaction scores rose by 2.4 points (lower dose) and 2.8 points (higher dose), compared with 1.4 points for placebo. Chin fat thickness, measured with caliper devices, changed on average by −3.8 mm and −4.2 mm in the two treatment groups respectively, versus −1.7 mm in the placebo group. 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 ↗
NCT00618722 · results posted 15 June 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 85 people in total across four groups. Participants received injections of deoxycholic acid (a substance being studied as a treatment for fat under the chin) at one of three different dose levels — 1 mg/cm², 2 mg/cm², or 4 mg/cm² — or a placebo (an inactive injection used for comparison). The trial's primary focus was on tracking adverse events (that is, any unwanted health events that occurred during the study). Secondary measures looked at things like how much fat under the chin changed according to a doctor's rating scale, how satisfied participants felt with their appearance, and how the angle of the chin-to-neck area changed. The reported data shows that when it came to adverse events (the primary outcome), virtually all participants across every group experienced at least one adverse event — 20 out of 20 in the 1 mg/cm² group, 19 out of 19 in the 2 mg/cm² group, 21 or 22 out of 22 in the 4 mg/cm² group, and 20 or 21 out of 22 in the placebo group. For the secondary outcomes, doctors rated the fat under the chin on a 0–4 scale, and the reported average change from the starting point was −0.9 for the lowest dose, −0.8 for the middle dose, −0.7 for the highest dose, and −0.5 for the placebo group (where a negative number means a lower score than at the start). On a 0–6 satisfaction scale, participants' average reported change was +3.8, +3.3, and +3.5 for the three dose groups respectively, compared with +1.9 for the placebo group. When asked whether their chin and neck area looked better overall, 88.9%, 78.9%, and 94.7% of participants in the three dose groups said they noticed at least some improvement, compared with 50.0% in the placebo group. Changes in skin looseness were very small across all groups (ranging from −0.3 to +0.1 on the rating scale). The chin-to-neck angle changed by −0.7 degrees, +2.3 degrees, and +6.9 degrees in the three dose groups, and −2.3 degrees in the placebo group. 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 ↗
NCT00430352 · results posted 8 June 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 545 participants, all of whom received rituximab at a dose of 375 milligrams per square metre of body surface area as a maintenance (ongoing, regular) treatment. Of those who started, 407 completed the study and 138 did not. The trial was measuring how often participants experienced side effects (called adverse events), as well as tracking whether their disease progressed, whether they died, or whether they needed a new treatment during the study period of roughly two years plus one year of follow-up. The reported data shows that 67.4% of participants experienced at least one adverse event of any kind during the study. Around 5.8% had an adverse event specifically related to receiving the infusion (the drip through which the medicine was given). A serious adverse event — meaning one that was considered medically significant — was recorded in 20.2% of participants, while 0.2% had a serious adverse event linked to the infusion itself. The reported data shows that 7.5% of participants died during the study period, and 3.0% stopped treatment because of a side effect. These figures relate only to what was counted and recorded; they do not account for events that may have occurred outside the observation window. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 24.0% of participants experienced disease progression or death (the measure called progression-free survival events), and 24.4% experienced disease progression, death, or the need to start a new lymphoma treatment (the measure called event-free survival events). A total of 7.3% of participants had died by the end of the overall study period. The time-to-event figures for both progression-free survival and event-free survival were listed as "not available" in the submitted data, so those specific numbers cannot be described 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 ↗
NCT01414855 · results posted 19 March 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01414855) enrolled 100 people who received a combination treatment of obinutuzumab plus a chemotherapy regimen known as CHOP. All 100 participants started the trial, 71 completed it, and 29 did not complete it (the reasons were not detailed in the data provided here). The trial was measuring how participants' lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) responded to treatment — specifically, how many showed their disease disappear completely or partially by the end of treatment, and how long those responses lasted. The reported data shows that, as assessed by the treating doctors, 55% of participants showed a complete response — meaning all detectable signs of disease had disappeared — at the end of treatment. A broader measure called the overall response rate, which includes both complete and partial responses (where disease shrank by at least half but did not fully disappear), was reported at 82%. When an independent review facility re-examined the same scans without involvement from the treating doctors, they reported a complete response rate of 58% and an overall response rate of 75%. The reported data also shows two longer-term measurements. Progression-free survival — the length of time from the first dose until the disease worsened, came back, or a participant died from any cause — was reported as a median (the middle value across all participants) of 48.3 months. The duration of response — how long participants who did respond maintained that response before the disease returned or worsened — was reported as a median of 45.6 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 ↗
NCT01154140 · results posted 5 January 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 172 people in the crizotinib group and 171 people in the chemotherapy group — 343 participants in total. The trial was measuring how long people with a certain type of lung cancer went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival), as well as a number of other outcomes including overall survival, how many people's tumours shrank, how long those responses lasted, and how quickly a response was seen. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome, the crizotinib group had a median progression-free survival (meaning the point at which half the group had experienced disease progression or death) of 10.9 months, compared with 7.0 months in the chemotherapy group. For overall survival — how long people lived from the start of treatment — the chemotherapy group had a reported median of 47.5 months, while the figure for the crizotinib group was listed as "not available" in the data, meaning it was not reported in a way that can be described here. The reported probability of being alive at 12 months was 83.5% for the crizotinib group and 78.4% for the chemotherapy group; at 18 months those figures were 71.5% and 66.6% respectively. The reported data also shows that 74.4% of participants in the crizotinib group had their tumour shrink or disappear (a complete or partial response), compared with 45.0% in the chemotherapy group. Among those who did respond, the reported duration of that response was 49.0 weeks in the crizotinib group and 22.9 weeks in the chemotherapy group. The time from the start of the study until a response was first recorded was reported as 6.1 weeks for the crizotinib group and 12.1 weeks for the chemotherapy group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page
NCT00078949 · results posted 21 October 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved people with a type of lymphoma who needed further treatment after their initial therapy. The study had two main stages. In the first stage, 310 people were assigned to a chemotherapy regimen called GDP and 309 to a regimen called DHAP, to compare how well each prepared patients for a stem cell transplant. In the second stage, 115 people were assigned to a maintenance therapy and 115 to observation only, to see how they fared over time without additional active treatment. The reported data shows that after two rounds of chemotherapy, 45.2% of people in the GDP group and 44.0% in the DHAP group showed a measurable response (meaning their disease appeared to shrink or disappear based on set criteria). When it came to actually going on to receive a stem cell transplant — which was a key goal of that first stage — 51.0% of the GDP group and 48.9% of the DHAP group reached that point. For the second stage, the trial tracked what the researchers called "event-free survival" — meaning the number of people who experienced a setback such as disease returning or worsening. The reported data shows that 53 people in the maintenance group and 65 people in the observation group experienced such an event during that period. Regarding side effects, the reported data shows that in the first stage, 36 people in the GDP group and 26 people in the DHAP group were recorded as experiencing adverse events (unwanted health effects) judged to be significant. In the second stage, 16 people in the maintenance group and 8 people in the observation group were recorded similarly. 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 ↗
NCT01538472 · results posted 11 September 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 40 people, all of whom received the same treatment: a combination called Y Zevalin plus BEAM (a type of high-dose chemotherapy preparation used before a stem cell transplant). Thirty-six participants completed the study, while four did not. The trial was measuring how long participants lived after receiving this treatment, tracked over up to five years with regular check-ins every three months for the first year, then every six months after that. The reported data shows two main results related to survival. First, the median overall survival — meaning the midpoint figure where half of participants had survived longer and half had not — was reported as 1,299 days, which is roughly three and a half years. Second, the reported data shows that 78% of participants were recorded as still alive at the three-year mark following treatment. 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 ↗
NCT01197560 · results posted 20 August 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01197560) enrolled 54 people in the lenalidomide group and 57 people in a control group who received a treatment of their doctor's choice ("Investigator's Choice"). The trial was measuring how many participants with a type of blood cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma showed a response to treatment — meaning their cancer shrank or disappeared according to standardised criteria. Responses were assessed both by an independent review committee and by the treating doctors themselves. The reported data shows that, based on the independent committee's review, approximately 27.5% of participants in the lenalidomide group and 11.8% in the control group showed an overall response (meaning their cancer shrank or disappeared to a defined degree). When the treating doctors made the same assessment, the figures were approximately 29.4% for the lenalidomide group and 13.7% for the control group. The reported data also shows that around 23.5% of the lenalidomide group and 9.8% of the control group maintained their response for at least 16 weeks. A complete disappearance of disease was reported in approximately 13.7% of the lenalidomide group compared to 3.9% in the control group. Among those who did respond, the estimated duration of that response was reported as approximately 64.7 weeks for the lenalidomide group and 63.1 weeks for the control group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page
NCT01283516 · results posted 11 August 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01283516) tested a drug called LDK378 (also known as ceritinib) in a total of 304 participants across nine different dose levels, ranging from 50 mg up to 750 mg per day. The trial was primarily designed to find the highest dose that could be given without too many participants experiencing serious side effects — a step known as finding the "maximum tolerated dose." Most participants had a type of lung cancer called non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the trial also looked at how well the tumours responded to the drug. The reported data shows that at the 600 mg dose level, 1 out of 10 participants experienced what is called a "dose-limiting toxicity" (a serious side effect serious enough to limit the dose), and at the 750 mg level, 2 out of 255 participants experienced one. Based on this, the maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 750 mg. For tumour response — measured as the percentage of participants whose tumours shrank by a meaningful amount — the reported figures for NSCLC patients varied depending on their treatment history. Among those who had previously received another similar drug (an ALK inhibitor), about 56% showed a response according to the treating doctors' assessment, and about 49% according to an independent review panel. Among those who had not previously received that type of drug, about 74% showed a response by doctors' assessment and about 65% by independent review. Across all NSCLC participants combined, those figures were approximately 62% and 55% respectively. The reported data also shows how long those responses lasted. For participants who had previously received a similar drug, the response lasted a reported median of around 8.3 months (by both assessments). For those who had not previously received that type of drug, the reported median duration of response was approximately 14 months by doctors' assessment and around 22 months by the independent review panel. The time from starting the drug until the disease progressed or participants passed away — called progression-free survival — was reported as a median of approximately 6.9 months for those with prior treatment, 15.2 months for those without prior treatment, and 8.7 months across all NSCLC participants combined. 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 ↗
NCT00669318 · results posted 20 June 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 41 people, all of whom received the same combination of three medicines: pentostatin, alemtuzumab, and rituximab. Of those 41 participants, 39 completed the trial and 2 did not. The trial was measuring how often patients achieved a "complete response" — meaning all signs of their condition disappeared according to a strict set of blood, bone marrow, and physical examination criteria — as well as broader response rates and survival-related timeframes. The reported data shows that 10% of participants achieved a complete response (the primary goal of the trial). When looking at the wider measure of overall response — which included complete responses, partial responses (at least a 50% improvement), and near-complete responses with some lingering blood count issues — the reported figure was 56% of participants. These percentages are based on the number of evaluable patients, though the exact number counted as "evaluable" was not separately reported in the data provided. The reported data also shows several time-based measures. The median overall survival — that is, the point at which half the participants had passed away from any cause — was reported as 34.1 months. The median progression-free survival, meaning the time until the condition worsened or a participant died, was reported as 7.2 months. The median time until participants needed to start a new or different treatment was reported as 9.1 months. These figures are medians, meaning half of participants fell above and half below each number. 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 ↗
NCT00947856 · results posted 26 May 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00947856) enrolled 110 people across two groups: 78 participants in the "Extension" group (who continued receiving the study treatment, brentuximab vedotin) and 32 in the "Retreatment" group (who received the treatment again after a break). The trial was measuring how often participants' cancer responded to retreatment, as well as tracking unwanted health events and certain blood test results across both groups. The reported data shows that, among the 32 people in the Retreatment group, 68% overall showed a measurable reduction in their cancer (either complete disappearance or at least a 50% reduction in tumour size) as assessed by their doctors. When broken down by cancer type, the reported response rates were 60% for those with Hodgkin lymphoma, 91% for those with a type called ALCL, and 33% for those in an "other" category. For secondary measures, the reported data shows that the median time a response lasted was 9.2 months overall in the Retreatment group, and the median time before the disease progressed or participants died was also 9.9 months overall. For overall survival (how long participants lived from the start of treatment), the data was not reported for any group. Regarding unwanted health events, the reported data shows that 75 out of 78 Extension participants and 31 out of 32 Retreatment participants experienced at least one adverse event of any kind during the study period. 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 ↗
NCT01073163 · results posted 4 April 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 54 people, all of whom received a combination of two medicines — bendamustine and rituximab. One person was enrolled but never treated, and 51 people completed the study. The main thing the trial was measuring was whether bendamustine affected the heart's electrical activity, specifically a measurement from a heart tracing (ECG) called the QTcF interval — a way of timing how long the heart takes to "reset" between beats. A longer QTcF can sometimes be a concern with certain medicines, so the trial tracked any changes from before treatment to during and after the infusion. The reported data shows that, on average, participants had a baseline QTcF reading of 410.4 milliseconds (ms — a unit of time used to measure ECG intervals). At the end of the bendamustine infusion, the average QTcF had changed by 6.7 ms from that baseline. One hour after the infusion finished, the average change from baseline was 4.1 ms. The reported data also shows that no participants had QTcF readings go above the key threshold values of 480 ms or 500 ms during treatment. One participant showed a change of between 30 and 60 ms from their personal baseline, but no participants showed a change greater than 60 ms. No new abnormal heart rhythm patterns or waveform changes were detected on any ECG. Three participants had cardiac-related events noted during the study, though the breakdown of their severity levels was also recorded. A modelling analysis looking at the relationship between drug levels in the blood and QTcF changes reported predicted changes of between approximately 5.4 ms and 7.1 ms at peak drug concentrations for bendamustine and its breakdown products. 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 ↗
NCT00004228 · results posted 5 December 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 393 participants in total across seven different treatment groups. The groups were made up of children and young people with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (a type of blood cancer), divided based on how far the cancer had spread and whether it had reached the central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord). The trial was comparing two different chemotherapy (anti-cancer drug) regimens — referred to as CCG BFM and NHL/BFM-95 — and also looked at whether adding an intensification phase (an extra, more intensive round of treatment) made a difference. The number of participants who completed the study ranged from 6 to 51 across the different groups. The reported data shows that the primary measure — called "event-free survival," which tracks how many participants did not experience treatment failure, a new cancer, or death during the study period — ranged from 63% to 90% across the seven groups, expressed as a percentage of participants in each group. The group with the lowest figure (63%) was those who had cancer that had spread to the central nervous system and received intensified treatment with delayed radiation therapy, while the highest figure (90%) was seen in one of the groups receiving the NHL/BFM-95 regimen without intensification. For the secondary measure — overall survival, meaning the percentage of participants still alive by the end of the measurement period — the reported figures ranged from 81% to 96% across the groups, with the localized disease group recording the highest figure of 96%. 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 ↗
NCT00059839 · results posted 8 October 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00059839) involved 129 participants in total, split across two groups: 65 people in the first group (called "Standard APO with Vincristine," or Arm I) and 64 people in the second group (called "Consolidation including Vinblastine," or Arm II). The trial was measuring something called "Event-free Survival" — this means the proportion of participants who, over time, did not experience their disease getting worse, coming back, developing a new cancer, or dying from any cause. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome of Event-free Survival, 74% of participants in Arm I and 79% of participants in Arm II were counted as event-free (meaning they had not experienced any of those outcomes by the time the measurement was taken). No secondary outcome measures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so further detail on other aspects of the trial was not reported there. It is also worth noting that not all participants completed the study — 12 in Arm I and 17 in Arm II did not finish, though the reasons were not specified in the data provided. 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 ↗
NCT00436618 · results posted 30 July 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 276 people across three groups: 114 with relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 55 with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and 107 with uncommon lymphomas. The trial was measuring tumour response (whether the cancer showed signs of shrinking or reducing according to specific medical criteria), as well as how long participants lived overall, how long they went without their disease getting worse, and how long it took for the disease to progress. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of tumour response, 26% of participants in the aggressive lymphoma group, 35% in the indolent lymphoma group, and 49% in the uncommon lymphomas group met the criteria for a response. For overall survival — that is, the time from joining the trial until death from any cause — the reported median figures were approximately 0.66 years for the aggressive lymphoma group, 2.45 years for the indolent lymphoma group, and 3.41 years for the uncommon lymphomas group. It is worth noting that these are median figures, meaning half of participants in each group lived longer than these times and half did not reach them. The reported data also shows that the time participants went without their disease worsening (called progression-free survival) was a median of approximately 0.18 years for the aggressive group, 0.60 years for the indolent group, and 0.79 years for the uncommon lymphomas group. The time specifically until the disease progressed (separate from death) was reported as 0.18, 0.60, and 0.90 years for the three groups respectively. 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 ↗
NCT00932893 · results posted 6 June 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00932893) enrolled 347 people with cancer — 173 assigned to receive crizotinib and 174 assigned to receive chemotherapy. The trial was measuring how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival), how long they lived overall, how many showed a measurable reduction in their cancer, and how many had their disease kept under control at certain time points. The reported data shows that, for the main measure — the time until the cancer started growing again or the person died — the crizotinib group had a reported median (midpoint value for the group) of 7.7 months, compared with 3.0 months in the chemotherapy group. For overall survival (total time from joining the trial until death from any cause), the reported median was 21.7 months for crizotinib and 21.9 months for chemotherapy. The reported data also shows that around 86.6% of the crizotinib group and 83.8% of the chemotherapy group were still alive at 6 months; at 12 months those figures were 70.4% and 66.7% respectively. When it came to tumour shrinkage, 65.3% of participants in the crizotinib group and 19.5% in the chemotherapy group were reported to have had a measurable reduction in their cancer. The reported data also shows that at the 6-week check, 81.5% of the crizotinib group and 55.2% of the chemotherapy group had their disease recorded as controlled (meaning it had shrunk or at least not grown); by week 12 those figures were 64.2% and 38.5% respectively. It is worth noting that far fewer participants completed the study in the chemotherapy group (4 people) compared with the crizotinib group (40 people), though reasons for this were not detailed in the data provided 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 ↗
NCT00413036 · results posted 11 April 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 217 people, all of whom received a medicine called lenalidomide. The trial was looking at how participants' Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) responded to the treatment. Notably, the reported data shows that zero participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the usual sense — all 217 were listed under "not completed," which may reflect how the trial's completion criteria were defined rather than dropouts alone. The main thing the trial measured was how each participant's disease responded, based on scans and tests reviewed by an independent central team. The reported data shows the following breakdown across the 217 participants: 7 had a complete response (meaning all detectable signs of disease disappeared), 21 had an unconfirmed complete response (similar to a complete response but with some remaining uncertainty), 40 had a partial response (meaning the disease shrank noticeably but did not disappear), 71 had stable disease (meaning the disease neither shrank enough to count as a response nor grew), and 78 had progressive disease (meaning the disease continued to grow or new areas appeared). The data for the proportion of participants who experienced stable disease or better was not reported in the submitted results. The reported data also includes several time-based measurements. Among those who had at least a partial response, the estimated duration of that response was 18.4 months. The estimated time from starting treatment to the first sign of disease progression was reported as 4.5 months, and the estimated progression-free survival (the time before disease worsened or death from any cause) was also reported as 4.5 months. These time figures are statistical estimates based on a method called Kaplan-Meier analysis, which is a standard way of tracking how long outcomes last across a group of people. 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 ↗
NCT01188798 · results posted 14 March 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01188798) enrolled 6 participants in total — 2 people in the methotrexate group and 4 people in the pentostatin group. The trial was set up to compare two different medicines used to help prevent a complication called graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) — a condition that can occur after a stem cell transplant when donated cells attack the recipient's body. Specifically, the trial was looking at whether pentostatin, compared with methotrexate, could reduce the rate of moderate-to-severe liver problems in the 42 days following a matched stem cell transplant for a blood cancer. The reported data shows that of the 6 participants who started the trial, only 1 (from the pentostatin group) completed it. The remaining 5 participants — both in the methotrexate group and 3 in the pentostatin group — did not complete the study. Importantly, no numerical results were reported on ClinicalTrials.gov for either the primary outcome (liver problem–free survival at day 42) or the secondary outcomes (which included overall survival, relapse, engraftment, and other side effects). Because no outcome measurement data was submitted, it is not possible to describe what the trial found in terms of actual numbers. The reported data also shows no figures were provided for the secondary goals, which included looking at survival overall, whether the cancer came back, how well the donated cells settled in, and other treatment-related health impacts. Given the very small number of participants and the absence of reported results, no conclusions about the outcomes can be drawn from this submission. 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 ↗
NCT00057954 · results posted 8 February 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 6 people, all of whom were in a single group receiving a transplant. Of those 6 participants, 4 completed the study and 2 did not complete it. The trial was looking at whether the transplant successfully "took" in the body (called engraftment), how many people were still alive 100 days after joining the study, and how long people went without their disease getting worse or without passing away. The reported data shows that all participants — a proportion of 1, meaning 100% of those measured — had successful engraftment, meaning the transplanted cells appeared to establish themselves in the body. For 100-day survival, the reported proportion was 0.83, which means roughly 83 out of every 100 people in this group (or about 5 out of 6) were recorded as surviving to at least 100 days after joining the study. For progression-free survival — the length of time before the disease got worse or a participant passed away — the reported figure was a median (that is, the middle value across participants) of 104 days. It should be noted that with only 6 participants, this is a very small group of people, and the data was not reported separately for those who did not complete the study. 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 ↗
NCT00233987 · results posted 5 February 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 98 people who all received the same treatment: high-dose therapy combined with a "tandem transplant" (a type of stem cell transplant given in two rounds). Of those, 94 were confirmed eligible, 92 went on to receive the treatment, and 83 completed the study. The trial was primarily looking at how many participants went two years without their disease getting worse — known as "progression-free survival" — and also tracked overall survival, how well the treatment shrank or cleared the disease (response rate), and the number of participants who experienced serious side effects linked to the study treatment. The reported data shows that 59% of participants reached the two-year mark without their disease progressing or dying. For overall survival (how many were still alive at the time of follow-up), the reported figure was 91%. Regarding response rate — how the disease responded to treatment — the data reports a breakdown across different response categories, including complete response (full disappearance of disease signs), unconfirmed complete response, and partial response (at least a 50% reduction in disease), with individual participant counts of 15, 8, 3, 2, 33, and 26 recorded across those categories, though the specific labels for each of these six figures were not clearly separated in the submitted data. The reported data also shows that a number of participants experienced serious side effects (graded as severe, life-threatening, or fatal) that were considered related to the study treatment, with individual counts across different side effect types ranging from 1 to 20 participants per category. 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 ↗
NCT00089076 · results posted 19 October 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 18 people, all of whom received a treatment called MDX-010 (also known as ipilimumab). The trial was looking at whether the treatment could reduce the size of tumours in participants — specifically, it was measuring how many people had a confirmed response, meaning their tumours shrank by at least half and no new disease appeared. Of the 18 people who started the trial, 8 completed it, and 10 did not complete it (the reasons were not detailed in the data provided here). The reported data shows that out of 18 participants, 2 had a confirmed response to the treatment as defined by the trial's criteria. For the secondary outcomes — including how long it took for the disease to progress, how long participants survived overall, and how long any response lasted — no numerical results were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. Two additional measurements looked at changes in certain immune cells (a type of white blood cell) in the blood before and one month after treatment began. The reported data shows an average change of 1.8 percentage points for one immune cell marker and 1.9 percentage points for another, though what these changes may mean clinically is not described 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 ↗
NCT00426764 · results posted 13 August 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 131 participants, all of whom received a treatment called romidepsin. The trial was studying people with a type of blood cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and the main thing researchers were measuring was how many participants showed a complete disappearance of their disease according to standard assessment criteria, as judged by an independent review committee. It is worth noting that none of the 131 participants were recorded as having "completed" the trial in the formal sense — 98 stopped before or during a sixth treatment cycle, and 33 stopped at or after that point. The reported data shows that 15.4% of participants were recorded as having a complete response (meaning their disease appeared to have fully disappeared based on the assessment criteria used). When looking at a broader measure — any meaningful reduction in disease, including partial responses — the reported figure was 26.2% of participants. The reported data shows that the median time to disease progression (that is, the midpoint at which half the participants had their disease begin to worsen again) was 182 days. Figures for how long responses lasted — both complete and partial — were not reported in the submitted data. The trial also tracked participants' general ability to carry out daily activities using a standard scale; the reported data shows that among those whose baseline score was available, a number showed no change or varying shifts in their daily functioning scores, though detailed breakdowns across all starting scores were not fully reported. 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 ↗
NCT00996996 · results posted 4 July 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 77 people, all of whom received a treatment called Tositumomab and Iodine I-131 Tositumomab (a type of radioactive antibody therapy). The trial was measuring how many participants showed a reduction or disappearance of their disease signs, based on scans and symptoms. Forty-four participants were recorded as completing the study, while 33 did not complete it. The trial tracked several types of response: a complete response (CR — all signs of disease gone on scans and no symptoms), a clinical complete response (CCR — all symptoms gone but some shadow on scans thought to be scar tissue), and a partial response (PR — at least a 50% shrinkage in measurable disease areas). The reported data shows that, out of 77 participants, 74 showed some form of response (CR, CCR, or PR) at any point during the trial. When responses were required to be confirmed by a second assessment at least four weeks later, 72 participants met that standard. Looking more closely at the confirmed response figures: 53 participants achieved a confirmed CR, 2 achieved a confirmed CCR, giving a combined confirmed CR+CCR of 57 participants, and 13 participants achieved a confirmed partial response. For responses that were not required to be confirmed, the numbers were slightly higher: 56 with CR, 3 with CCR, 59 combined CR+CCR, and 15 with a partial response. For the secondary outcome measuring how long responses lasted, the reported data shows figures of 98.0, 129.2, 6.9, 130.7, and 11.8 months across different measures, though the specific breakdown of what each figure represents was not fully detailed in the submitted data. For overall survival — measuring the time from treatment to death from any cause — the reported value was listed as "not available," meaning that figure was not reported in the submitted 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 ↗
NCT00771472 · results posted 4 July 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 10 participants in total — 6 in Part I and 4 in Part II. No participants were recorded as having completed the study; all 10 were listed under "not completed," though the data does not explain the reasons for this. The trial was investigating a medicine called vorinostat, and it was primarily measuring how many participants experienced adverse experiences (unexpected or unwanted changes in the body, either detected through laboratory tests or observed clinically), as well as — in Part I — how many experienced what are called "dose-limiting toxicities" (serious side effects severe enough to limit how much of the drug could be given). The reported data shows that, across both parts of the trial combined, 10 out of 10 participants experienced some form of adverse experience, and a further measurement reported 6 participants experiencing adverse experiences (the data does not make fully clear what timepoints or subgroups these two figures represent separately). For the dose-limiting toxicity outcome in Part I, the reported data shows that 1 out of 6 participants experienced this type of serious adverse event. The trial also tracked how the drug moved through the body in Part I. The reported data shows that the drug's total exposure in the blood (measured over 24 hours) was 4.59 µM·hr on Day 1 and 5.59 µM·hr on Day 28. The highest concentration of the drug in the blood was reported as 0.83 µM on Day 1 and 1.17 µM on Day 28. The time it took to reach that peak was approximately 2.91 hours on Day 1 and 3.73 hours on Day 28, and the time for the drug concentration to reduce by half was approximately 1.94 hours on Day 1 and 2.30 hours on Day 28. 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 ↗
NCT00719472 · results posted 26 June 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 451 people, all of whom received a medicine called rituximab. The trial was looking at whether rituximab could be given at a faster drip (infusion) rate than usual without causing serious reactions during the infusion. Specifically, it was measuring how many patients experienced a severe (Grade 3 or 4) infusion-related reaction — meaning a significant reaction during or shortly after the drip — when the medicine was given more quickly in the second treatment cycle, compared to the standard slower rate used in the first cycle. The reported data shows that 1.1% of participants experienced a severe infusion-related reaction when rituximab was given at the faster rate in Cycle 2. Regarding other recorded events of any kind and any level of seriousness, the reported data shows that 91.8% of participants had at least one such event during the first treatment cycle, and 98.6% had at least one during cycles 2 through to the end of the study. The reported data also shows that the middle (median) infusion time at the standard rate in Cycle 1 was 245 minutes, compared to 91 minutes for subsequent cycles using the faster rate. Some additional measurements were taken of rituximab levels in the blood and of certain immune cells (CD19+ lymphocytes) at various points in the study; those figures were recorded, but their interpretation in plain terms was not described further 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 ↗
NCT00117598 · results posted 6 March 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 169 participants across three treatment groups before any crossover: 57 people received a higher maintenance dose of temsirolimus (175 mg starting dose, then 75 mg), 56 received a lower maintenance dose of temsirolimus (175 mg starting dose, then 25 mg), and 56 received a treatment chosen by their doctor (called "Investigator's Choice"). A small number of participants later crossed over to a different treatment. The trial was primarily measuring how long participants went without their disease getting worse — called progression-free survival — and also looked at several other things including how many participants showed a measurable reduction in their disease, how long any response lasted, and how long participants survived overall. The reported data shows that for the main measure — time without disease getting worse — the higher-dose temsirolimus group had a reported median of 4.8 months, the lower-dose temsirolimus group had 3.7 months, and the doctor's-choice group had 1.8 months. (A "median" here means the middle value — half of participants in each group reached that point sooner, and half later.) For the proportion of participants whose disease showed a measurable reduction, the reported figures were 22.2% in the higher-dose temsirolimus group, 5.6% in the lower-dose group, and 1.9% in the doctor's-choice group. The reported data also shows that overall survival — time from the start of the trial until death — was 11.1 months, 8.8 months, and 9.5 months for the three groups respectively. For duration of response (how long a reduction in disease lasted among those who responded), the higher-dose group was reported at 7.1 months and the lower-dose group at 3.6 months; this figure was not reported for the doctor's-choice group. 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 ↗
NCT00848926 · results posted 26 October 2011

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 102 participants, all of whom received a treatment called brentuximab vedotin. The trial was measuring how the drug affected a type of blood cancer called lymphoma. There was only one group in the trial — no comparison or placebo group. During the active treatment phase, 18 of the 102 participants completed that period, while 84 did not (the data does not explain why in detail). During the follow-up period, 90 of the 102 participants completed follow-up. The reported data shows that the main thing the trial was measuring — called the "objective response rate" — was 75%. This means that, according to an independent review panel, 75% of participants showed either a complete disappearance of detectable disease or a meaningful reduction in disease size during treatment. Of those, 33% were reported to have achieved a complete disappearance of detectable disease. The reported data also shows figures related to how long these responses lasted: the median duration of response across all responders was reported as 6.7 months, while for those who achieved a complete disappearance of disease, the median duration of response was reported as 27.9 months. ("Median" here simply means the midpoint figure — half the participants had a longer duration and half had a shorter one.) The reported data also includes two further time-based measures. The median time before disease progressed or death occurred was reported as 5.6 months, and the median overall survival — that is, the midpoint for how long participants lived from the start of treatment — was reported as 40.5 months. These figures come from a statistical method called Kaplan-Meier analysis, which estimates these timepoints using data from all participants, including those still alive at the time of analysis. 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 ↗
NCT00453193 · results posted 28 March 2011

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 24 participants, and all 24 completed the study. The trial involved a single treatment group, where participants received a combination of two medicines — alemtuzumab and pentostatin. The study was measuring how many participants had an "objective response," meaning their disease either disappeared completely or shrank significantly during treatment. The reported data shows that out of 24 participants, 11 had what was classified as a "complete response" — meaning all detectable signs of their disease had disappeared by the end of treatment. A further 2 participants had what was classified as a "partial response," meaning their disease shrank by at least half but did not disappear entirely. No other outcome measures, such as data on side effects or longer-term follow-up, were included in the results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. 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 ↗
NCT00506922 · results posted 28 March 2011

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether adding a medicine called pentostatin (at different dose levels) to a standard two-drug regimen could help prevent a serious complication of bone marrow transplants called graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) — a condition where donated immune cells attack the recipient's body. A total of 150 people took part across five groups: one group received no pentostatin, and the other four groups received pentostatin at increasing doses (0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 units). The trial tracked whether participants were alive, had a successful transplant take hold, and were free of acute GVHD at the 100-day mark. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — the number of patients who were alive, had a successful graft, and were free of acute GVHD at 100 days — was measured across the pentostatin groups combined, with 100 participants meeting that definition of "success." It is important to note that the results as submitted only reported this figure for the pentostatin groups as a whole, without breaking it down by individual dose level. No separate comparison figure was reported for the group that received no pentostatin, so a direct numerical comparison between the groups is not available in the data provided. The reported data does not include results for secondary outcomes, so no further figures are available to describe 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 ↗
NCT00366275 · results posted 18 October 2010

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 64 people who all received the same treatment approach — a combination of immunochemotherapy, a process called "in vivo purging" (using medication to clear certain cells from the body before a stem cell collection), and an autologous stem cell transplant (where a person's own stem cells are collected, stored, and then returned to them after high-dose treatment). There was one group only, and no comparison group. The trial was measuring how long participants went without their lymphoma coming back or without dying from any cause — a measure known as "progression-free survival." The reported data shows that 58 of the 64 participants completed the study, while 6 did not. For the main outcome, researchers used a statistical method called the Kaplan-Meier estimator — a standard way of estimating survival over time when not all participants have been followed for the full period — to calculate a five-year progression-free survival figure. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, the estimated probability of a participant going five years without their lymphoma progressing or dying from any cause was reported as 59 percent. No other outcome measures were included in the submitted results 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 ↗
NCT00283439 · results posted 13 September 2010

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medicine called romiplostim in 39 people receiving chemotherapy. Participants were split into four groups, each receiving a different dose of romiplostim — 100, 300, 700, or 1,000 micrograms. The trial was measuring what happened to participants' platelet counts (platelets are tiny blood cells that help with clotting). Specifically, it tracked whether platelet counts dropped less during chemotherapy compared to a previous cycle without the medicine. The reported data shows that no participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the formal sense, though all started it. The reported data shows that for the main measurement — the change in the lowest platelet count reached during the treatment cycle — the numbers varied across dose groups. In the 100 µg group, the lowest platelet count was, on average, 17.1 units (×10⁹/L) higher than in the previous cycle; in the 300 µg group it was 11.2 units higher; in the 700 µg group it was 5.1 units higher; and in the 1,000 µg group it was 5.2 units *lower*. For the secondary measurements, the percentage of participants whose platelet count fell to a seriously low level (described as grade 3 or 4, meaning very low) ranged from 62.5% in the lowest dose group to 88.9% in the highest dose group. How long platelet counts stayed at that seriously low level ranged from about 3.6 days (300 µg group) to 8.3 days (1,000 µg group). The percentage of participants who needed a platelet transfusion ranged from 0% in the 300 µg group to 33.3% in the 1,000 µg group. 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 ↗
NCT00474188 · results posted 13 August 2009

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 26 people who received a combination of two medicines — lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The trial was designed to look at how a type of blood cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma responded to this treatment combination. Of the 26 people who started the trial, 20 completed it and 6 did not. The reported data shows that the trial was terminated early, before it was finished as originally planned. Because of this early termination, the researchers did not carry out the planned analyses for any of the outcome measures. The primary outcome — which was intended to count how many participants showed a complete or partial shrinkage of their tumour — was not analysed and no numbers were reported. Similarly, none of the secondary outcomes were analysed or reported, including tumour control rate (whether the cancer stayed stable or shrank), how long any response lasted, how long it took for the cancer to get worse, or how long people lived without their cancer progressing. The reported data shows no results figures at all for this trial, as the early termination meant the planned analyses were never conducted. The reasons for the early termination are not detailed 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 ↗

See the full Lymphoma 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.