Reported trial results for Mesothelioma
Every Mesothelioma 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.
39 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
-
NCT05451849 · results posted 13 July 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this was a Phase 1 clinical trial (NCT05451849) testing an experimental treatment called TC-510. A total of 14 people enrolled in the study, though only 6 completed it — 8 participants did not finish, though the reasons are not broken down further in the reported data. The trial was primarily looking at unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during or after treatment, as well as some early signs of how tumours responded. The reported data shows that, among the 6 participants for whom adverse event data was recorded, 6 experienced treatment-related unwanted medical events of any kind, and 6 also experienced events classified as "serious" — meaning they met criteria such as requiring hospitalisation, being life-threatening, or resulting in significant disability. The data also lists smaller subgroups of 3, 4, 3, 2, and 0 participants across further categories of adverse events, though the labels for each of these specific sub-categories were not included in the submitted data. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 1 participant had their tumour shrink enough to count as a response (either a complete or partial response, using a standard measurement tool called RECIST). A total of 2 participants either had a response or had their disease remain stable for at least 8 weeks. It is worth noting that this was a very small, early-phase trial, and the numbers involved are quite 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.
-
NCT04166734 · results posted 4 February 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04166734) enrolled 5 participants, all in an initial safety group. A planned second group (the "Expansion Cohort") had no participants enrolled. The trial was testing a combination of two treatments — a radiation therapy called SBRT (a focused, high-dose course of radiotherapy given in 3 sessions) and a drug called pembrolizumab — in people with cancer. The main thing the trial was looking to measure was whether the combination caused serious side effects (called "dose limiting toxicities"), with a range of other measures also tracked including how participants' tumours responded and how many participants were still alive at six and twelve months. The reported data shows that none of the 5 participants in the safety group experienced a dose limiting toxicity (a serious side effect meeting the trial's pre-set criteria). For the worst level of side effects recorded across all participants, the data shows 3 out of 5 participants had a highest-recorded grade of 3 (on a scale where higher numbers mean more severe), and 2 out of 5 had a highest-recorded grade of 2; no figures were reported for the expansion group as no one was enrolled in it. Regarding how tumours responded, 1 out of 5 participants had a complete or partial response (meaning their tumour shrank or disappeared), and 3 out of 5 had their disease either respond or remain stable. The reported data shows 3 out of 5 participants were alive at six months, and 2 out of 5 were alive at twelve months; data for the expansion cohort was not reported as it had no enrolees. None of the 5 participants completed the full 35 planned cycles of pembrolizumab. It is worth noting that the trial appears to have stopped after only the small initial safety phase of 5 people, and the expansion phase did not go ahead — this means the reported results come from a very small number 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.
-
NCT05070247 · results posted 22 January 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05070247) tested an investigational drug called TAK-500, given either on its own or in combination with another medicine called pembrolizumab, across a range of doses. The trial enrolled 61 participants in total across 14 treatment groups, with group sizes ranging from 2 to 7 people. No participants had been enrolled yet in the planned "Dose Expansion" group at the time results were submitted. The trial was primarily designed to track what unwanted medical events (called adverse events) occurred after participants received the study treatments, and to identify whether any dose levels caused particularly serious or intolerable reactions (called dose-limiting toxicities). The reported data shows that across all groups, every participant who started treatment experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event — that is, an unwanted medical occurrence that appeared after the first dose. Regarding more serious reactions (graded as "Grade 3 or higher," meaning severe or worse on a standard medical scale), the reported numbers ranged from 2 to 5 participants per group out of the small numbers enrolled in each. For dose-limiting toxicities — reactions serious enough to potentially cap how high the dose could go — the reported data shows these occurred in 2 out of 2 participants in the group receiving TAK-500 at 24 µg/kg with one dose of a medicine called tocilizumab, and in 2 out of 4 participants in the group receiving 60 µg/kg with two doses of dexamethasone; all other groups reported zero dose-limiting toxicities. Serious adverse events (those requiring hospitalisation or considered life-threatening, among other criteria) were reported in 2 to 5 participants per group. Data for two of the combination dose escalation groups (TAK-500 24 µg/kg and 40 µg/kg with pembrolizumab) was not reported for some of these outcome measures in the submitted results. Secondary outcome data was not reported in the structured results available. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04914897 · results posted 2 October 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 106 people across four groups. All participants had either non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or mesothelioma (a cancer affecting the lining of the lungs or other organs), and all received a combination of two medicines — pegenzileukin and pembrolizumab. The trial was measuring how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "objective response rate"), as well as tracking side effects and how quickly any response appeared. The reported data shows that in the lung cancer group whose tumours had the highest levels of a particular protein marker (PD-L1 ≥50%, 17 people), 41.2% had their tumours shrink or disappear by the required amount. In the lung cancer group with moderate protein marker levels (PD-L1 1–49%, 20 people), that figure was 15.0%. For the group who had already received earlier treatments for lung cancer (40 people), only 2.5% showed that level of tumour shrinkage, and in the mesothelioma group (29 people) who had also received prior treatments, the figure was 3.4%. The reported data also shows that all participants in every group experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (an unwanted medical event that occurred during treatment), and serious adverse events were recorded in 6, 11, 21, and 13 participants across the four groups respectively. One participant in the previously-treated lung cancer group experienced what the trial defined as a dose-limiting toxicity (a side effect serious enough to potentially limit the dose used). The time from starting treatment to first recorded tumour response ranged from approximately 2.2 to 4.1 months across the 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 · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
-
NCT03710876 · results posted 20 May 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03710876) enrolled 53 people in total — 27 in the Treatment Group and 26 in the Control Group. Four people in the Control Group did not complete the study, while everyone in the Treatment Group did. The trial was measuring how long participants lived overall, how long it took for their disease to get worse, and how their tumours responded to treatment. The reported data shows that the Treatment Group had a median overall survival (that is, the middle point in time by which half the group had passed away) of 17.6 months, compared with 15.5 months in the Control Group. For progression-free survival — the time until the disease was recorded as getting worse or until death — the Treatment Group's median was 7.4 months, while the Control Group's was 14.6 months. When it came to tumour response, 2 participants in the Treatment Group and 1 in the Control Group showed a measurable shrinkage of their tumour. Disease was kept under control (meaning tumours shrank or stayed stable) in 19 Treatment Group participants and 15 Control Group participants. Nine participants in each group had their disease remain stable for six months or more. At the 12-month mark, approximately 59.3% of the Treatment Group and 63.6% of the Control Group were reported to still be alive. 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 ↗
-
NCT04158141 · results posted 19 February 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04158141) was designed to study treatments for mesothelioma (a cancer affecting the lining of the lungs) in two steps. In Step 1, all 16 enrolled participants received chemotherapy and a type of surgery called pleurectomy/decortication (removal of the lining around the lung). Eleven of those 16 participants went on to Step 2, where they were randomly assigned to either receive no further treatment (Arm I, 5 participants) or receive a specialised form of radiation therapy called IMRT/PBS (Arm II, 6 participants). The trial was intended to enrol enough participants to reach 105 deaths before drawing conclusions, but it closed early due to low enrolment, meaning the planned statistical comparisons could not be carried out. The reported data shows that at the time the study was stopped, 5 out of 6 participants in the no-further-treatment group (Arm I) and 4 out of 4 participants in the radiation group (Arm II) were last reported to be alive. For local disease progression (cancer growing back near the treated area), 3 participants in each group were last reported to be alive without that occurring. For spread of cancer to distant parts of the body, 5 participants in Arm I and 2 in Arm II were last reported to be alive without that occurring. For overall disease progression of any kind, 3 participants in Arm I and 2 in Arm II were last reported to be alive and progression-free at the time the study ended. Regarding serious side effects (graded as severe or worse and considered related to treatment), the reported data shows 0 participants in Arm I and 1 participant in Arm II experienced one. The quality-of-life outcome data was not reported in the submitted results. It is important to note that because the trial closed much earlier than planned and involved very small numbers of participants, the figures above cannot be used to draw broader conclusions. The reported data also notes that no formal statistical testing was performed on the secondary outcomes. The quality-of-life measure was listed as a planned outcome, but no results were submitted for it — the 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.
-
NCT06469138 · results posted 29 January 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 6 participants, all of whom completed the study. All 6 were in a single group and received one oral dose of 200 mg of a drug called bemcentinib, which contained a small amount of a radioactive tracer (carbon-14). The tracer was used to track how the drug and its breakdown products moved through the body — this type of study is sometimes called a "mass balance" study. The trial was designed to measure how bemcentinib is absorbed, distributed, and cleared from the blood over time. The reported data shows the following results from blood samples taken at set time points after the dose. In plasma (the liquid part of blood), the highest concentration of the radioactive tracer reached was 81.2 units (ngEq/mL), while in whole blood the peak was 121 units. For bemcentinib itself measured in plasma, the peak concentration was 55.8 ng/mL, and this peak was reached approximately 12 hours after taking the dose. The reported data also shows that it took around 92 hours (roughly 4 days) for the level of bemcentinib in plasma to fall by half — this is known as the "half-life," meaning the time for the body to reduce the drug's concentration by 50%. A separate measure of overall drug exposure across the entire time in the body (called the area under the curve) was reported as 6,050 h·ng/mL. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03717415 · results posted 27 December 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03717415) enrolled a total of 70 participants across two main phases. The first phase tested different dose combinations of two medicines — rebastinib (at either 50 mg or 100 mg) and carboplatin (at different dose levels) — to find a suitable dose. The second phase then tested those doses in expanded groups of participants. The trial was measuring things like how many people experienced adverse events (unwanted medical occurrences), how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "objective response rate"), and how long any such response or disease control lasted. The reported data shows that, for adverse events (the primary measure), the numbers of participants who experienced serious adverse events varied across the nine groups, ranging from 0 to 6 people per group. For tumour response in the expansion phase (a key primary measure), the reported rates were 0% in several groups, 16.7% in one group (Part 2, Cohort 2 receiving the lower rebastinib dose), and 100% in another very small group (Part 2, Cohort 2 receiving the higher rebastinib dose, which contained only 2 participants). In the earlier dose-finding phase, the reported tumour response rate was 0% across all three groups. For how long responses lasted (Duration of Response), figures were only reported for two groups — 11.8 months and 13.5 months respectively — and were not reported for the remaining groups. The reported time until disease progression ranged from approximately 1.3 to 14.6 months across the different groups, with one group listed as "not available." These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT01265433 · results posted 9 October 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 41 people in total — 20 received galinpepimut-S combined with two other agents (Montanide and GM-CSF), while 21 received Montanide and GM-CSF alone (the control group). All 41 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring how long people went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival), as well as how long people lived overall, and whether the body produced an immune response to the treatment. The reported data shows that, looking at the main outcomes, 44% of people in the galinpepimut-S group had not experienced disease progression or death at the one-year mark, compared with 33% in the control group. The middle point for how long people went without disease progression (median progression-free survival) was reported as 10.1 months for the galinpepimut-S group and 7.4 months for the control group. For overall survival, the reported median — meaning the point at which half the participants in each group had died from any cause — was 22.8 months in the galinpepimut-S group and 18.3 months in the control group. Regarding immune response, the reported data shows participant counts across several measurements in a subset of the group, though the specific categories those numbers relate to were not fully described in the submitted data, so a plain breakdown of those figures cannot be 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 ↗
-
NCT03685591 · results posted 26 June 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03685591) enrolled 49 people in total across nine groups. Participants received the investigational drug PF-06952229 at different dose levels — either on its own (Part 1A, doses ranging from 20 mg to 500 mg) or combined with another drug called enzalutamide (Part 1B, at 250 mg or 375 mg). None of the participants were recorded as having completed the study. The trial was primarily designed to find out how the body tolerates different doses of PF-06952229, by tracking serious side effects (called dose-limiting toxicities) and other treatment-related medical events, as well as changes in blood and urine test results. The reported data shows that, when looking at serious first-cycle dose-limiting toxicities — the key safety signal used to guide dose increases — 3 participants in the 375 mg monotherapy group experienced such events, while no dose-limiting toxicities were reported in any other group. For treatment-related adverse events (unwanted medical occurrences linked to the study drug), the reported numbers ranged from 1 participant at the lower doses up to 13 participants in the 375 mg monotherapy group. Abnormal laboratory test results were similarly spread across groups, with the 375 mg monotherapy group again reporting the highest count of 13 participants. The reported data also shows that the peak level of PF-06952229 measured in participants' blood (the highest concentration the drug reached) generally rose as the dose increased, reaching its highest point roughly 2 hours after each dose was taken across most 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 ↗
-
NCT03319537 · results posted 23 May 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03319537) enrolled 9 participants, all of whom were assigned to receive pevonedistat on its own (referred to as Cohort 1). No participants were enrolled in the second group, which was intended to receive pevonedistat combined with two chemotherapy medicines, pemetrexed and cisplatin (Cohort 2). All 9 participants who started the study completed it. The trial was measuring two main things: how many patients in Cohort 1 experienced a "clinical benefit" — meaning their cancer either shrank or stayed stable for at least 18 weeks — and what the highest safely tolerated dose of the combination treatment would be in Cohort 2. The reported data shows that, of the 9 participants in Cohort 1, 2 were recorded as having a clinical benefit response (meaning their cancer shrank — either a complete or partial response), while 7 were recorded as having stable disease at the 18-week mark. Together, these two figures make up what the trial called the "clinical benefit rate." For the second main outcome — finding the maximum tolerated dose for the combination treatment — no data was reported, which aligns with the fact that no participants were enrolled in Cohort 2. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02004028 · results posted 20 February 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 35 people across four groups (called cohorts): 10 in Cohort 1, 10 in Cohort 2, 10 in Cohort 3, and 5 in Cohort 4. All 35 participants completed the study. The trial was looking at a drug called defactinib (also known as VS-6063) in people with malignant pleural mesothelioma — a cancer affecting the lining of the lungs. The study measured how the drug moved through the body (pharmacokinetics), whether it reduced the activity of a particular protein in tumour tissue (called pFAK), and how tumours responded on scans. The reported data shows that for the drug's behaviour in the body, the peak level of the drug in the blood (the highest concentration reached) was 1,052 ng/mL in Cohorts 1 and 2, and around 513–517 ng/mL in Cohorts 3 and 4. The total amount of drug the body was exposed to over time was highest in Cohorts 1 and 2 (5,280 ng·h/mL) and lower in Cohorts 3 and 4 (2,753 and 1,891 ng·h/mL respectively). The time it took to reach peak drug levels in the blood was 1 hour for Cohorts 1, 2, and 4, but 4 hours for Cohort 3, which received the drug with food. For the tumour protein measurement (pFAK inhibition), a result of 85.6% inhibition was reported for Cohort 3 only; the data was not reported for the other three cohorts. The reported data shows that every participant across all four cohorts — all 35 people — experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted or unexpected medical occurrence) during the trial. Regarding tumour response on scans, no participants were recorded as having a complete response (tumours disappearing entirely) in any cohort. A partial response (tumours shrinking by 30% or more) was reported in 1 person in Cohort 1, 2 people in Cohort 2, 1 person in Cohort 3, and 0 people in Cohort 4. Stable disease (tumours neither growing nor shrinking enough to meet the other categories) was reported in 9, 4, 7, and 2 participants in Cohorts 1 through 4 respectively; results for the remaining participants were not 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.
-
NCT03399552 · results posted 23 October 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03399552) enrolled 15 participants, all of whom received a treatment called avelumab. The trial was measuring what is known as the "overall response rate" — essentially, how many participants' disease changed in a measurable way according to specific imaging guidelines adapted for mesothelioma (a type of cancer affecting the lining of the lungs or abdomen). Of the 15 who started, 13 completed the study and 2 did not finish. The reported data shows the results broken down across four categories of response, with the following numbers of participants in each: 2, 8, 1, and 4. Unfortunately, the labels identifying exactly what each of these four categories represents (for example, complete response, partial response, stable disease, or progressive disease) were not clearly provided in the submitted data, so it is not possible to describe precisely what each number refers to beyond these raw 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.
-
NCT02709512 · results posted 4 October 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a treatment called ADI-PEG 20 combined with standard chemotherapy (pemetrexed and platinum), compared to a placebo (an inactive substitute) plus the same standard chemotherapy. The trial ran in two stages — a Phase 2 portion (87 people in the ADI-PEG 20 group and 89 in the placebo group) and a Phase 3 portion (125 and 124 people respectively). The main things being measured were how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "response rate"), and how long participants lived overall ("overall survival"). A secondary measure tracked how long participants went before their disease got worse ("progression-free survival"). The reported data shows that in the response rate measurement, 12 participants in each group had their tumours shrink or disappear. For overall survival, the trial reported a median of approximately 9.30 months in the ADI-PEG 20 group compared to 7.66 months in the placebo group at the final analysis. An earlier mid-trial check reported figures of 9.82 months versus 7.49 months respectively. (Median here simply means the point at which half the participants in each group had passed away and half were still living.) For progression-free survival — the time before the disease got worse — the reported median was 6.24 months in the ADI-PEG 20 group and 5.65 months 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.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03926143 · results posted 4 August 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03926143) enrolled 9 participants, all of whom received a drug called anetumab ravtansine. The trial was measuring side effects experienced during treatment, as well as how long participants lived after starting the treatment. None of the 9 participants formally "completed" the study, as the trial was ended early. The reported data shows that when it came to side effects (called treatment-emergent adverse events, meaning unwanted health changes that started or got worse during the treatment period), all 9 participants experienced at least one such event. Two participants experienced what are classified as "serious" adverse events during treatment. Eight participants experienced side effects considered related to the study drug, while no participants had serious adverse events considered related to the drug. For the question of how long participants lived (called overall survival), the reported data shows a median survival time — meaning the middle point where half of participants had passed away and half had not — of 17.6 months. The upper end of the reported confidence range (a statistical range indicating uncertainty around that figure) was 34.1 months, while the lower end of that range was not reported in the data. Five of the 9 participants (55.6%) had passed away by the time data was collected, and 4 (44.4%) were still alive at that point. It is worth noting that because the study was ended early, the results are based on a very small number of people, and the trial was not able to be completed as originally planned. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03241173 · results posted 27 September 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03241173) tested an experimental medicine called INCAGN01949, given alone or in combination with other cancer medicines (nivolumab and/or ipilimumab), in people with advanced solid tumours. The trial had two main phases: a Phase 1 portion, which focused on testing different doses and monitoring unwanted medical events, and a Phase 2 portion, which was intended to look at how many participants' tumours responded to treatment. In total, 52 people started the Phase 1 parts of the trial across the various dose groups. The Phase 2 portions of the trial reported zero participants as having started, meaning no data from those groups was available. The reported data shows that in Phase 1, every participant across all 11 reported groups experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event — that is, any new or worsening medical problem that occurred after the first dose. When looking specifically at more serious events (graded as severe, life-threatening, or worse — described in the trial as "Grade 3 or higher"), the numbers ranged from 1 to 5 participants per group out of the small group sizes involved. Regarding tumour response in Phase 1, the reported data shows that most groups recorded a 0% response rate. The two exceptions were the lowest-dose INCAGN01949 plus nivolumab group (25% of 4 participants) and one safety expansion group at 200 mg plus nivolumab (approximately 17% of 6 participants). For those few participants who did show a response, the reported duration of that response was 97 days in one group and 86 days in another; one further group's duration was not reported in the data. The Phase 2 primary outcome (response rate) had no data reported, as those groups did not enrol any participants. It is important to note that these group sizes were very small, and the Phase 2 portion of the trial does not appear to have been completed or enrolled. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00738582 · results posted 22 September 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 89 participants, all of whom received a combination of three medicines — amatuximab, pemetrexed, and cisplatin — during an initial treatment phase. Of those 89, 56 went on to a maintenance phase receiving amatuximab on its own, though none were recorded as having fully completed that phase. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants went at least six months without their disease getting worse — a period known as "progression-free survival" — and also tracked a range of other outcomes including tumour response and how long participants lived overall. The reported data shows that, of the 77 participants counted in the primary outcome, 26 were recorded as having their disease remain stable for at least six months, while 51 were not. For the additional measures, the reported data shows that around 34.5% of participants showed a measurable reduction in tumour size (either a complete disappearance or a significant shrinkage). Among those who did respond in that way, the response lasted a reported average of approximately 9.2 months, and it took a reported average of around 2.3 months from the first dose for a response to first appear. The reported data also shows that the average time before the disease progressed or death occurred across all participants was approximately 6.3 months, and the average overall survival time from the first dose was reported as approximately 14.8 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.
-
NCT02460224 · results posted 10 February 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02460224) enrolled a total of 512 participants across many different treatment groups. It was a two-phase study testing an experimental drug called LAG525, both on its own and combined with another drug called PDR001, in people with advanced cancer. Phase 1 aimed to find appropriate doses by looking at how many people experienced serious side effects early in treatment (called dose-limiting toxicities — that is, harmful reactions severe enough to limit how much drug could be given). Phase 2 then looked at how many participants' tumours responded to the combination treatment, measured using a standard set of imaging-based rules called RECIST 1.1. The reported data shows that in Phase 1, dose-limiting toxicities were uncommon across most dosing groups. Out of the groups where this was reported, only a small number of individuals experienced them — for example, 1 participant in the lowest single-agent dose group, 2 in another single-agent group, and 1 in one of the combination groups; the remaining groups reported zero dose-limiting toxicities. For Phase 2, the reported outcome measuring tumour response (called Overall Response Rate, or ORR — meaning the percentage of people whose tumour either disappeared completely or shrank by at least 30%) varied across cancer types and treatment groups. In the treatment-naïve group (people who had not previously received this type of treatment) receiving one dosing schedule, ORR figures ranged from approximately 14% to 26% depending on tumour type, while in the previously treated group the reported figures were generally lower, ranging from around 0% to 9%. Some figures for certain subgroups 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.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02592551 · results posted 13 January 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 24 people in total across three groups: 9 received a drug called MEDI4736 on its own, 11 received a combination of MEDI4736 and a second drug called Tremelimumab, and 4 were in an untreated control group. The trial was measuring changes in certain immune cells found inside tumours — specifically looking at how different types of immune cells behaved before and after treatment. The main thing being measured was the ratio of two types of immune cells (known as CD8 cells and regulatory T cells, or "Tregs") inside the tumour — a higher ratio broadly means more of the "attacking" immune cells relative to the "dampening" ones. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome, the change in the CD8-to-Treg ratio in the combination therapy group was reported as 8.6 (no units, as both cell types were measured as percentages). For secondary outcomes, also in the combination group, the change in a marker called ICOS+ CD4 T cells was reported as −2.1 percentage points, and the change in a tumour protein called PD-L1 was reported as 0.07 (measured in signal intensity units). When comparing the CD8-to-Treg ratio after treatment, the reported data shows a value of 8.0 for the MEDI4736-alone group and 9.7 for the combination group. The untreated control group had a reported ratio of 4.03, compared with 9.7 in the combination group. For ICOS+ CD4 T cells, the reported percentage was 1.2 in the MEDI4736-alone group and 4.5 in the combination group. It is worth noting that this was a small trial — fewer than 25 participants across all three groups — and results from small studies like this should be interpreted with care. 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 ↗
-
NCT02899299 · results posted 14 April 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 605 participants in total — 303 in Treatment A and 302 in Treatment B. The main thing the trial was measuring was **overall survival**, meaning how long participants lived from the time they were randomly assigned to a treatment group. The trial also tracked several secondary measures, including how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called the objective response rate), how many participants had their disease stay stable or improve (called the disease control rate), and how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival). The reported data shows that for the primary measure — overall survival — the median time participants in Treatment A lived was approximately 18.1 months, compared with approximately 14.1 months for those in Treatment B. (Median means the middle value — half of participants lived longer than this, and half lived shorter.) For progression-free survival, the reported median was about 6.8 months for Treatment A and 7.2 months for Treatment B. The reported data shows that approximately 39.3% of participants in Treatment A and 44.4% in Treatment B had their tumours shrink or disappear. For disease control — which includes tumours that shrank, disappeared, or stayed stable — the reported figures were approximately 76.6% for Treatment A and 85.8% for Treatment B. The trial also looked at these survival figures broken down by a biological marker called PD-L1 expression (a protein measured on tumour cells), with reported median overall survival figures ranging from roughly 13 to 18 months across both groups and both expression levels. 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 ↗
-
NCT02860286 · results posted 9 April 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02860286) looked at a drug called tazemetostat in people with a type of cancer called malignant mesothelioma that had come back or stopped responding to previous treatment. The trial had two parts: Part 1 involved 13 participants and focused on how the drug moves through the body (sometimes called "pharmacokinetics" — meaning how the drug is absorbed, how quickly it reaches its peak level in the blood, and how long it takes to clear). Part 2 involved 61 participants and looked at how the disease responded to the drug. All 74 participants across both parts completed the study, with none reported as having dropped out. The reported data shows the following from Part 1 regarding how tazemetostat behaved in the blood: the highest recorded level of the drug in the bloodstream (its peak concentration) was 933 nanograms per millilitre, reached on average about 1.1 hours after taking the dose. Measures of the drug's total exposure over time were reported as 3,650 and 3,410 (in units of hours × nanograms per millilitre, two slightly different ways of calculating total drug exposure). The drug's "half-life" — meaning the time it took for the amount in the blood to reduce by half — was reported as approximately 3.06 hours. For Part 2, the reported data shows that out of 61 participants, 33 had their disease classified as "controlled" (meaning it showed a complete response, partial response, or was stable) at 12 weeks, and 20 participants met that same measure at 24 weeks. No data was reported for any other secondary outcome measures 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 ↗
-
NCT02899195 · results posted 6 April 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02899195) enrolled 55 participants, all of whom received the immunotherapy drug durvalumab given alongside chemotherapy, followed by durvalumab on its own as a maintenance (ongoing) treatment. The trial was measuring how long participants lived overall, how long they lived without their disease getting worse, and other related outcomes. Of the 55 who started the first phase, 44 moved on to the maintenance phase, and 10 completed that second phase. The reported data shows that the median overall survival — that is, the midpoint time from when participants joined the trial until death from any cause — was 20.4 months. The median progression-free survival (the time until the disease was recorded as getting worse, or until death, whichever came first) was reported as 6.7 months. Similarly, the median time to progression specifically while on durvalumab was reported as 6.8 months. The reported data also shows that 31 out of 55 participants had a measurable reduction in their disease according to standard imaging criteria (known as an objective response), and that 36 out of 55 participants experienced treatment-related side effects as recorded by a standard medical grading 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 ↗
-
NCT00003508 · results posted 21 February 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00003508) looked at a treatment called Antineoplaston Therapy. Eight people took part in the study, though only three completed it, and five did not complete it. The trial was measuring how participants' disease responded to the treatment, using standard criteria that categorise responses as a complete response (disease disappearing entirely), a partial response (disease shrinking by at least half), stable disease (disease not changing much), or progressive disease (disease getting worse). The reported data shows that out of the eight participants, zero had a complete response, two had a partial response (meaning their measurable disease shrank by 50% or more for at least four weeks), one had stable disease (meaning their disease did not change significantly for at least twelve weeks), and five were listed as "not evaluable" — meaning their results could not be assessed using the trial's criteria. No figures for progressive disease were separately reported in the data provided. It is worth noting that this was a very small study with only eight participants, and five of those could not be assessed, so the reported data covers a limited number 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.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
-
NCT00128102 · results posted 26 October 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 329 people in the vorinostat group and 332 in the placebo group — a total of 661 participants. The trial was studying vorinostat as a treatment for pleural mesothelioma (a cancer affecting the lining of the lungs), and it was measuring how long participants lived overall, how long it took for the disease to progress, how many participants showed a measurable reduction in tumour size, and what kinds of unwanted health changes (called adverse events) occurred during the study. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in the vorinostat group lived for approximately 30.7 weeks from the time they joined the trial, compared to approximately 27.1 weeks in the placebo group. When looking at how long it took for the disease to get worse, both groups were similar — around 6.3 weeks for the vorinostat group and 6.1 weeks for the placebo group. The reported data also shows that less than 1% of participants in each group had a measurable shrinkage in their tumour (0.63% in the vorinostat group and 0.31% in the placebo group). Regarding unwanted health changes, 327 out of 329 people in the vorinostat group and 311 out of 329 people in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event. Of these, 165 in the vorinostat group and 146 in the placebo group experienced severe or life-threatening adverse events (graded 3 or 4 out of 5 in severity). Additionally, 60 people in the vorinostat group and 49 in the placebo group stopped taking their study treatment because of an adverse event. It is worth noting that very few participants in either group completed the full study period — only 1 in the vorinostat group and none in the placebo group — which the reported data does not explain further. 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 ↗
-
NCT02610140 · results posted 17 July 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two treatments — anetumab ravtansine (the experimental drug) and vinorelbine (an existing chemotherapy) — in people with a type of cancer called malignant pleural mesothelioma, a cancer affecting the lining of the lungs. A total of 166 people were assigned to the anetumab ravtansine group and 82 to the vinorelbine group. The trial's main goal was to measure how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival), and a number of secondary goals were also tracked, including how long participants lived overall, how many saw their tumour shrink, and how long any shrinkage lasted. The reported data shows that, for the main measure — time until the disease progressed or the person died — the anetumab ravtansine group had a reported median (the midpoint value for the group) of 4.3 months, compared with 4.5 months for the vinorelbine group. For overall survival (time from the start of the trial until death from any cause), the reported median was 9.5 months in the anetumab ravtansine group and 11.6 months in the vinorelbine group. Regarding tumour response, about 8.4% of participants in the anetumab ravtansine group and 6.1% in the vinorelbine group had their tumour shrink meaningfully. The reported data shows that disease was kept stable or better (either shrinking or not growing) in 73.5% of the anetumab ravtansine group and 68.3% of the vinorelbine group. Among those whose tumours did shrink, the response lasted a reported median of 7.4 months in the anetumab ravtansine group and 6.7 months in the vinorelbine 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 ↗
-
NCT02357147 · results posted 17 March 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02357147) enrolled 108 people with a form of cancer called mesothelioma. Participants were split into two groups: 52 people received a drug called amatuximab combined with two standard chemotherapy medicines (pemetrexed and cisplatin), while 56 people received a dummy treatment (placebo) combined with the same two chemotherapy medicines. The trial was carried out in two phases — a combination treatment phase and a maintenance (ongoing) treatment phase — and the main thing being tracked was how many participants experienced unwanted health events, called adverse events and serious adverse events. The reported data shows that during the combination treatment phase, 50 out of 52 participants in the amatuximab group experienced some kind of adverse event, compared with 52 out of 54 treated participants in the placebo group. Serious adverse events during this same phase were reported in 15 participants in the amatuximab group and 11 in the placebo group. Moving into the maintenance phase (where participants received amatuximab or placebo on their own, without chemotherapy), 19 out of 25 treated participants in the amatuximab group and 21 out of 29 in the placebo group experienced adverse events, while serious adverse events were reported in 1 participant in the amatuximab group and 4 in the placebo group during this phase. No secondary outcome measure data was included in the submitted results. It is worth noting that the reported data does not include details on what specific adverse events occurred or how severe they were beyond the serious/non-serious distinction, so a full picture of what participants experienced is not available from this submission alone. 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 ↗
-
NCT01583686 · results posted 9 October 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 15 people in total, with 3 participants placed into each of five groups. Each group received a different dose of a specialised cell-based treatment — called an anti-mesothelin CAR (immune cells that were modified in the laboratory to target a protein found on certain tumours) — alongside a drug called IL-2. All 15 participants completed the study. The trial was primarily measuring two things: whether any participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, and how many participants experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events) during the trial. The reported data shows that, when tumour response was measured using a standardised system (called RECIST, which categories responses as complete disappearance, meaningful shrinkage, stable disease, or growth), none of the 15 participants across any of the five dose groups showed a complete disappearance of their tumours or a meaningful shrinkage meeting the threshold for a "partial response." The reported data also shows that one participant in the second-lowest dose group (3×10⁶ cells) had a result recorded in what appears to be a separate response category, though the label for that specific category was not fully detailed in the submitted data. Regarding unwanted medical events, the reported data shows that all 3 participants in every group — 15 people in total — had at least one adverse event recorded during the trial. It is worth noting that this was a very small, early-phase trial designed primarily to explore different doses rather than to draw broad conclusions, and the numbers involved are too small to generalise. 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 ↗
-
NCT02187783 · results posted 16 April 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 106 participants, all of whom received a medicine called ribociclib at a dose of 600 mg. The trial was studying how participants' solid tumours responded to this treatment over time. The main things being measured were: how many participants had their tumour shrink or stay stable for at least 16 weeks (called "clinical benefit"), how many had their tumour shrink by a meaningful amount (called "overall response"), and how long participants lived without their disease getting worse or how long they survived overall. The reported data shows that out of 105 participants assessed for solid tumour response, 19 were recorded as experiencing some form of clinical benefit — meaning their tumour either disappeared, shrank, or stayed stable for at least 16 weeks. Of these, 3 participants had their tumour shrink significantly (either a complete disappearance or a partial shrinkage confirmed over time), 16 had their disease stay stable, 71 had their disease get worse, and 15 were recorded in another category. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that the middle value (called a median — the point where half the group fell above and half below) for how long participants went without their disease getting worse was 1.8 months, and the median time participants survived overall was 7.7 months. Among the small number of participants whose tumours responded, the reported duration of that response ranged from 254 days to 985 days across three individual cases 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.
-
NCT01907100 · results posted 18 March 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled a total of 545 participants across two phases. In Phase II, 43 people were assigned to placebo and 44 to nintedanib. In Phase III, 229 people were assigned to each group. The trial was looking at nintedanib (a type of cancer medicine) added to standard chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy plus a placebo (an inactive treatment), in people with a type of lung cancer. The main thing being measured was how long people lived without their cancer getting worse — called "progression-free survival" — and a key secondary measure was how long people lived overall. The reported data shows that in the Phase II part of the trial, the placebo group had a median progression-free survival (meaning half the group reached this point) of 5.72 months, while the nintedanib group had 9.36 months. In the larger Phase III part, the reported figures were 6.97 months for placebo and 6.77 months for nintedanib. For overall survival — how long people lived from the start of the trial — the Phase II results showed 14.46 months for placebo and 18.30 months for nintedanib, while Phase III showed 16.07 months for placebo and 14.36 months for nintedanib. These numbers represent the midpoint (median) for each group, meaning half the participants in each group lived longer than this and half did not reach it. For the Phase III part only, the reported data also shows that about 42.8% of people in the placebo group and 45.0% in the nintedanib group had their tumour shrink by a meaningful amount (called an "objective response"). Additionally, 92.6% of the placebo group and 90.8% of the nintedanib group had their disease either shrink or stay stable for at least 36 days (called "disease control"). These numbers describe what was observed and recorded in 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.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02349412 · results posted 28 February 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02349412) enrolled 405 people with advanced cancer — 202 in the "early palliative care" group, who received palliative care support alongside their usual cancer treatment, and 203 in the "usual care" group, who received standard cancer treatment only. The trial's main goal was to measure any change in participants' quality of life (QOL) over time using a questionnaire called the FACT-G, which runs on a scale of 0 to 108 (higher scores mean better quality of life). Secondary goals included looking at changes in depression and anxiety symptoms, and whether participants had spoken with their oncologist about their wishes for end-of-life care. The reported data shows that, for the main measure at 12 weeks, the early palliative care group's FACT-G score changed by an average of +3.35 points from their starting score, while the usual care group's score changed by an average of +0.12 points. At 24 weeks (a secondary measure), the reported changes were +3.80 points for the early palliative care group and +0.69 points for the usual care group. For anxiety (measured on a 0–21 scale where lower means less anxiety), scores changed by −1.13 in the early palliative care group and −0.32 in the usual care group at 12 weeks. For depression (same scale), both groups showed a small increase of around 0.54 and 0.46 points respectively, meaning reported depression symptoms were marginally higher at 12 weeks than at the start for both groups. Regarding end-of-life conversations at 12 weeks, 30 participants in the early palliative care group and 16 in the usual care group reported having discussed their wishes with their oncologist. Data for the SF-36 quality-of-life measure 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 ↗
-
NCT02599194 · results posted 3 January 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 7 participants, all of whom completed the study. The trial was investigating two types of imaging tracers — radioactive substances that are injected and then "light up" on a special scan, allowing doctors to see tumours. The two tracers were called 18F-FSPG and 18F-FDG. The study looked at how well each tracer detected tumours before and after participants received their usual cancer treatment, by measuring how much of the tracer was taken up by tumour tissue, and how tumour size changed over time. The reported data shows that the primary measure — called SUVmax, which is a way of quantifying how much tracer a tumour absorbs — changed from before treatment to after treatment. For 18F-FSPG, the reported average change was −1.69 g/mL, and for 18F-FDG it was −0.64 g/mL (negative numbers mean the tumours absorbed less tracer after treatment than before). For tumour size, the reported data shows individual lesion measurements using 18F-FDG ranged from −2.0 cm² to +11.3 cm² (some lesions appeared smaller, some larger). The reported data for 18F-FSPG lesion size measurements was largely not reported for individual lesions, with only one lesion showing a change of +0.2 cm². The reported data also shows that the number of treatment-related unwanted effects (adverse events) linked to either tracer was zero for both 18F-FSPG and 18F-FDG. It is important to note that this was a very small study with only 7 participants, and the results 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.
-
NCT01843374 · results posted 17 August 2017
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01843374) enrolled 571 people with mesothelioma (a cancer most often linked to asbestos exposure). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a drug called tremelimumab (382 people) or a placebo — an inactive substitute (189 people). The trial's main goal was to measure overall survival, meaning how long people lived after joining the trial. Several secondary goals were also tracked, including how long it took for the cancer to get worse (progression-free survival), how many people's tumours shrank or disappeared (overall response rate), how long those responses lasted, and how many people had their disease stabilise or improve for at least 12 weeks (disease control rate). The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of overall survival, 307 out of 382 people in the tremelimumab group and 154 out of 189 people in the placebo group died during the study period. For the secondary measures: the percentage of people still alive at 18 months was reported as 17.4% in the tremelimumab group and 18.2% in the placebo group. The median time before the cancer got worse or death occurred was reported as approximately 2.69 months for tremelimumab and 2.76 months for placebo. The proportion of people whose tumours shrank meaningfully was 4.5% with tremelimumab and 1.1% with placebo. Among those who did respond, the response lasted a median of around 4.8 months (tremelimumab) and 5.57 months (placebo). The disease control rate — meaning the proportion whose disease stabilised or improved for at least 12 weeks — was reported as 21.7% for tremelimumab and 27.7% for placebo. 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 ↗
-
NCT01861301 · results posted 24 October 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 18 participants, all of whom were assigned to receive a drug called tivantinib. All 18 participants completed the study — none dropped out. The trial was primarily looking at whether tumours shrank in response to the treatment, using a standardised imaging-based measuring system called RECIST v1.1, which classifies tumour changes into categories such as "complete response" (tumour disappears entirely) or "partial response" (tumour shrinks by at least 30%). The reported data shows that 0% of participants — that is, none of the 18 people in the trial — had their tumours shrink enough to meet the criteria for a complete or partial response. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 22.2% of participants experienced a serious side effect (graded as severe or higher on a standard medical scale). The reported data also shows a median overall survival — meaning the point at which half the participants were still alive — of 12.2 months. The median progression-free survival — meaning the point at which half the participants had either seen their disease worsen or had passed away — was reported as 1.9 months. Two additional planned measures relating to biological markers in the blood and tumour tissue were listed in the trial but no results data was reported for those outcomes. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00165503 · results posted 9 September 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 16 participants across one treatment group, who received a combination of cisplatin (a chemotherapy medicine), sodium thiosulfate, and Alimta (another chemotherapy medicine). The trial was designed to look at whether it was practical and feasible for patients to complete a course of chemotherapy given after surgery — specifically, whether patients could finish three rounds (cycles) of cisplatin and Alimta, started around six to ten weeks after an operation that used heated cisplatin delivered directly into the body cavity. The reported data shows that none of the 16 participants were recorded as having completed the study — all 16 were listed under "not completed." The primary outcome being measured was the rate at which patients finished all three chemotherapy cycles after surgery. However, the actual percentage or number for this completion rate was not reported in the results data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no figure for this outcome is available to describe. Because the key result figure was not reported in the submitted data, it is not possible to describe what the trial ultimately found about chemotherapy completion rates. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00398138 · results posted 2 March 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 12 participants, all of whom received a vaccine treatment. The trial was measuring two things: how the body's immune system responded to the vaccine (specifically, whether certain immune cells reacted to particular proteins linked to cancer), and what side effects or toxic reactions occurred, recorded using a standard medical grading system called the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria. The reported data shows that 10 out of the 12 participants completed the study, while 2 did not finish. For both the immune response measure and the safety measure, the results data lists 10 participants — matching the number who completed the trial. However, the submitted results do not include specific numbers or details beyond the participant counts, such as how many people showed an immune response or what types or severity of side effects were recorded. That level of detail was not reported in the structured data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. Because the detailed findings for each outcome were not included in the submitted data, it is not possible to describe the actual immune or safety results in any further detail here — only that 10 participants contributed to those measurements. 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 ↗
-
NCT01024946 · results posted 20 April 2015
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 11 people, all of whom had malignant mesothelioma (a type of cancer affecting the lining of the lungs or abdomen) and had already received at least one or two previous treatments. All 11 participants received a medicine called everolimus. The trial was measuring what is called the "clinical benefit rate" — that is, how many people showed either a complete disappearance of tumours, a meaningful shrinkage of tumours, or stable disease (where tumours neither grew nor shrank significantly) after 16 weeks of treatment. The reported data shows that of the 11 people who started the trial, 6 completed it and 5 did not finish. For the primary outcome, the results list two separate figures of 4 participants and 2 participants in relation to tumour response, however the way these numbers are broken down in the submitted data is not entirely clear — it is not explicitly labelled which figure corresponds to which response category (for example, partial response versus stable disease). As such, a precise breakdown cannot be stated with confidence based on the data provided. No additional secondary outcome measure data was reported in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial, with only 11 participants in a single group — meaning the numbers reported here represent a very limited snapshot. The reported data shows what was observed and measured in this specific group of people 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.
-
NCT00748085 · results posted 16 July 2014
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 5 participants, all of whom completed the study with none dropping out. The trial was looking at the use of a freezing agent (cryogen) to treat tumours in the airway. It aimed to measure how well the freezing treatment worked by examining tissue samples under a microscope (histopathology) and by visually inspecting the treated area, as well as checking whether any scarring or narrowing of the airway occurred. All unwanted health events (adverse events) were also tracked as part of the safety assessment. The reported data shows that no numerical measurement results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for either the primary or secondary outcome measures. The primary outcome was intended to capture information about the effect of the freezing agent on tumour tissue and any airway changes, while the secondary outcome was intended to measure how much the airway opening (luminal patency — meaning how open the airway was) improved after treatment. However, the actual figures or findings for both of these outcomes were not reported in the data submitted to the registry. Because no outcome numbers were provided in the submission, it is not possible to describe what the trial found in terms of specific results. The reported data shows only that 5 people started and finished the study, but the details of what was observed or measured were not included in the publicly available record on 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 ↗
-
NCT00538850 · results posted 5 March 2014
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00538850) enrolled 130 people who were already taking regular opioid pain medicines for cancer-related pain and who also experienced episodes of sudden, short-term "breakthrough" pain. The trial was measuring whether a fentanyl spray placed under the tongue reduced breakthrough pain intensity compared to a dummy (placebo) spray. The study had two main stages: a first stage where 130 participants found their right dose of the fentanyl spray, and a second, blinded stage where 98 of those participants received both the fentanyl spray and the placebo spray across separate pain episodes, without knowing which was which at the time. The reported data shows that the main measure — a combined pain-intensity score calculated over 30 minutes (where a higher number means less pain, on a scale from −3,000 to +3,000) — was 640.3 for the fentanyl spray and 399.6 for the placebo spray. The reported data also shows that at every earlier and later time point measured (5, 10, 15, 45, and 60 minutes), the pain-intensity scores were higher for the fentanyl spray group than for the placebo group at each interval. Similarly, scores measuring how much relief participants reported feeling (rated from "no relief" to "complete relief" and added up over time) were higher for the fentanyl spray at every time point measured, up to 60 minutes. When participants were asked to give an overall rating of the medication at 30 and 60 minutes (on a scale of 1 = Poor to 5 = Excellent), the reported average ratings were 2.8 and 3.1 for the fentanyl spray, compared with 2.0 and 2.2 for the placebo. 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 ↗
-
NCT00459862 · results posted 5 December 2013
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 34 participants, all in a single group (called "Arm I"), and all 34 completed the study. The trial was looking at pazopanib as a treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma (a type of cancer affecting the lining of the lungs). The main thing researchers were measuring was how many participants showed no sign of their cancer getting worse at the six-month mark, using a standard set of imaging-based criteria called RECIST, which doctors use to track changes in tumour size. The reported data shows that approximately 47.8% of evaluable participants (those whose results could be assessed) had no sign of their disease progressing at six months. For the secondary measurements, the reported median overall survival — meaning the point at which half the participants had passed away and half were still alive — was 11.5 months. The reported median progression-free survival (the length of time participants went without their disease getting worse) was 4.2 months. When looking at tumour responses, the reported data shows that 5 participants had a complete response (meaning all measurable tumours disappeared on scans) and 0 participants had a partial response (a reduction of at least 30% in tumour size). The overall confirmed response rate was reported as 5.9%. Regarding side effects, the data reports that 23 participants experienced Grade 3 toxicities (serious but manageable side effects), 5 experienced Grade 4 toxicities (severe side effects), and 3 experienced Grade 5 toxicities (the most serious category), though the data does not specify which side effects occurred or their relationship to the study drug. 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 ↗
See the full Mesothelioma 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.