Reported trial results for Thyroid Cancer

Every Thyroid Cancer 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.

63 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

NCT06054178 · results posted 20 May 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 8 participants, all of whom completed the study — none dropped out. The trial was looking at whether a dye called fluorescein sodium, given during surgery, could help surgeons see facial nerves more clearly. To do this, the researchers measured how well the dye's glow lined up with two other ways of identifying nerves: electrical stimulation (a standard surgical tool that confirms nerve location) and the surgeon's own eye under normal white light. They also measured how brightly the nerve glowed compared to the surrounding tissue. The reported data shows that when surgeons rated how well the fluorescent glow matched electrical nerve stimulation, the average score was 3.8 out of 4 (where 4 means "excellent correlation"). When rating how well the glow matched what they could see under normal light, the average score was 3.7 out of 4. The brightness of the nerve compared to the surrounding background tissue was reported as a ratio of 2.5, meaning the nerve appeared roughly 2.5 times brighter than the tissue around it. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows the average dose of dye used was 1 mg per kilogram of body weight, and on average it took about 151 minutes after the dye was given for the nerve to become visible under fluorescent light. 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 ↗
NCT04439292 · results posted 19 May 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04439292) enrolled 44 participants who received a combination of two medicines — dabrafenib and trametinib. All 44 participants were in a single treatment group, meaning there was no comparison or placebo group. Of the 44 who started, 36 were confirmed eligible, treated, and had their mutation status confirmed. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "objective response rate"), and secondarily tracking how long participants went without their disease getting worse. The reported data shows that 36.1% of the analysable participants had their tumours show a complete or partial reduction in size — this was the main result the trial was designed to measure. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that approximately 67.6% of participants had not experienced their disease getting worse at the six-month mark. The reported middle-point figure (median) for how long participants went without disease progression or death was 11.4 months — meaning half of participants reached that point sooner and half took longer. It is worth noting that the data shows zero participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the formal sense, which may reflect how the study's completion was defined rather than what happened to individuals — however, no further explanation for this was provided 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 ↗
NCT03157128 · results posted 16 April 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03157128) tested a medicine called selpercatinib in people with certain cancers that carry specific genetic changes known as RET alterations — including RET fusions and RET mutations — in cancers such as thyroid cancer and other solid tumours. The trial ran in two stages: a Phase 1 dose-finding stage, where 857 participants across ten different dose groups tested doses ranging from 20 mg up to 240 mg; and a Phase 2 stage, where 857 further participants were enrolled across six groups based on their cancer type and treatment history. The trial was measuring what dose was appropriate to carry forward, and what proportion of Phase 2 participants had their tumours shrink or disappear as assessed by an independent review committee. The reported data shows that in Phase 1, the highest dose identified under the study's specific criteria (called the Maximum Tolerated Dose) was 160 mg, and this same dose — 160 mg taken twice daily — was also selected as the recommended dose for the Phase 2 stage. For Phase 2, the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank or disappeared (called the Objective Response Rate) was reported as follows: 62.9% in people with RET fusion-positive solid tumours who had received prior treatment; 79.7% in those with RET fusion-positive solid tumours who had not yet received standard therapy; 77.6% in people with RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) who had prior treatment; 82.8% in those with RET-mutant MTC without prior standard therapy; 57.2% in people with other advanced RET-altered solid tumours; and 31.3% in participants who had previously stopped a different RET-targeting medicine. For the secondary outcomes in Phase 1, the reported data shows that the number of participants who experienced treatment-related adverse events (unwanted effects considered linked to the study drug) ranged from 1 participant in the single-person 160 mg once-daily group up to 733 out of 764 participants in the 160 mg twice-daily group. Abnormal laboratory test results were recorded across all dose groups, with numbers matching or close to the total enrolled in each group. One secondary outcome — the Phase 2 overall response rate assessed by an alternative brain-tumour imaging measure called RANO — 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 ↗
NCT03899792 · results posted 6 January 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial tested a drug called LOXO-292 (also known as selpercatinib) in children and young people with certain types of cancer. The trial had two phases. In Phase 1, three participants took part to check whether the drug caused any serious dose-related side effects at the planned dose level. Phase 2 then enrolled 36 participants across three groups: 15 with medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), 15 with papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), and 6 with other cancer types. The trial was primarily measuring whether the dose caused particular side effects in Phase 1, and in Phase 2, how many participants showed a measurable shrinkage or disappearance of their tumours. The reported data shows that in Phase 1, none of the three participants experienced what the trial defined as a "dose-limiting toxicity" — that is, a serious side effect severe enough to limit the dose. In Phase 2, the trial measured what is called the "overall response rate" — the percentage of participants whose tumours either disappeared completely or shrank by at least 30%. The reported figures were 60% for the medullary thyroid cancer group, 53.3% for the papillary thyroid cancer group, and 33.3% for the other cancer group. It is worth noting that none of the Phase 2 participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the trial, which the reported data does not explain further. The secondary outcome measures — which looked at how the drug moved through the body over time — were not reported, with the entry stating that data would be provided after the study is completed. 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 ↗
NCT03109847 · results posted 11 December 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared metformin hydrochloride (a medication) against a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) in people who had undergone surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, likely for thyroid cancer. A total of 13 people took part — 6 in the metformin group and 7 in the placebo group. Of these, 12 completed the study (5 in the metformin group and 7 in the placebo group), with one person in the metformin group not completing it. The trial was measuring changes in red blood cell counts, a profile of tiny particles found in blood and saliva called exosomes, and the number of adverse events (unwanted or unexpected medical occurrences) recorded during the study. The reported data shows that red blood cell counts (measured in millions of cells per microlitre of blood) changed by minus 0.11 in the metformin group and minus 0.63 in the placebo group from before surgery to after treatment — meaning both groups showed a small decrease, with the placebo group showing a larger decrease. For the number of adverse events recorded, the metformin group had 32 and the placebo group had 11. For the exosome profile (the blood and saliva particle analysis), no numerical results were reported in the submitted data. The reported data also shows that for the three secondary outcomes measured — dry mouth, dry eyes, and changes in taste — no numerical results were 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 ↗
NCT03914300 · results posted 31 October 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 11 participants, all of whom received a combination of three medicines: cabozantinib s-malate, nivolumab, and ipilimumab. Ten participants completed the study, and one did not. The trial was measuring how often tumours shrank or disappeared within the first six months of treatment (called the "objective response rate"), as well as tracking how long any response lasted, how long participants lived without their disease getting worse, and how long participants survived overall. The reported data shows that the objective response rate — meaning the proportion of participants whose tumour partially or completely shrank within six months — was 0.1, or 1 out of 10 participants. For those who did respond, the reported duration of that response was 18.6 months. The median progression-free survival (the midpoint time before disease worsening) was reported as 8 months, and the median overall survival was reported as 19.2 months. Regarding side effects related to treatment, the reported data shows that several types of side effects each occurred in more than 20% of participants, with the number of participants experiencing each of those individual side effects ranging from 3 to 5 out of the group. No data was reported for tumour mutation status. 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 ↗
NCT04985604 · results posted 2 October 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 23 people across two groups: 8 participants with melanoma (the Melanoma Cohort) and 15 participants with various other cancer types (the Tissue Agnostic Cohort). The trial was primarily measuring the **overall response rate** — that is, the proportion of participants whose tumours showed a meaningful shrinkage or disappearance according to standard scanning criteria, as judged by the treating doctor. The trial also tracked how long any such response lasted, how long participants went without their disease worsening, and what unwanted medical events occurred during treatment. The reported data shows that in the Melanoma Cohort, 50% of participants had a response (tumour shrinkage meeting the defined criteria), while in the Tissue Agnostic Cohort, 40% of participants had a response. For those who did respond, the reported data shows the median time until the response ended was 5.6 months in the Melanoma Cohort and 9.2 months in the Tissue Agnostic Cohort. The median time until disease worsening or death — regardless of whether a response occurred — was reported as 5.5 months in both groups. Regarding unwanted medical events that arose during treatment, all 8 melanoma participants and 15 of the 15 tissue agnostic participants experienced at least one such event. More detailed breakdowns of blood test changes and serious events were also recorded, but interpreting those figures fully would require discussion with a medical professional. It is worth noting that this was a small trial, with fewer than 25 people in total across both groups, so the numbers above reflect a very limited set 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 ↗
NCT01896479 · results posted 2 September 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01896479) enrolled 247 people in total — 123 in a group taking a 60 mg daily dose of a drug called cabozantinib, and 124 in a group taking a 140 mg daily dose of the same drug. All participants received at least one dose. The trial was primarily measuring how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called "progression-free survival"), and also looked at how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared by a meaningful amount (called the "objective response rate"). The reported data shows that, when assessed by an independent reviewing committee, the median time before disease progression or death was 11 months in the 60 mg group and 13.9 months in the 140 mg group. "Median" here simply means the midpoint — half the participants in each group reached that point before that time, and half after it. Participants were followed for up to around 31 months. For the secondary measure — the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank or disappeared to a qualifying degree — the reported data shows 33% in the 60 mg group and 33% in the 140 mg group, meaning roughly one in three participants in each group met that measurement threshold. 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 ↗
NCT01723202 · results posted 24 August 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 53 people in total — 26 in one group receiving a drug called dabrafenib on its own (Arm A), and 27 in another group receiving dabrafenib combined with a second drug called trametinib (Arm B). Some participants in Arm A later switched ("crossed over") to the combination treatment. The trial was measuring how often tumours responded to treatment, how long it took for the disease to progress, how long participants lived, and what side effects and dose changes occurred. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure — the proportion of participants whose tumours showed at least some response — 42% of people in the dabrafenib-alone group and 48% in the combination group met that threshold. For progression-free survival (meaning the length of time before the disease was recorded as getting worse), the reported figures were 10.7 months for the dabrafenib-alone group, 15.1 months for the combination group, and 7.5 months for those who crossed over to the combination later. For overall survival (time from treatment start until death), the reported median figures were 37.9 months, 47.5 months, and 36 months for those same three groups respectively. Regarding dose changes, the reported data shows that 6 participants in the dabrafenib-alone group and 15 in the combination group required a dose modification, while 5 and 6 respectively experienced a dose delay. The adverse events (unwanted side effects recorded as related to treatment) data was also reported across the groups, though the breakdown across multiple event categories makes a simple summary difficult to state precisely from the data as submitted. 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 ↗
NCT04284774 · results posted 3 June 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 5 children and young people (referred to as paediatric patients) who received a drug called tipifarnib. The trial was designed to measure how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (known as an "objective response"), how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called "progression-free survival"), and what proportion experienced serious side effects. All 5 participants are recorded as not having completed the study, and none are recorded as having completed it — the data does not explain the reasons for this. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — the percentage of patients whose tumours shrank or disappeared — was 0%, meaning none of the 5 participants met the criteria for a response during the study. For the secondary outcomes, including progression-free survival and the rate of serious side effects (graded 3 or higher), no numerical results were reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. The same applies to the additional exploratory measures looking at tumour genetics and biomarkers — no data was reported for those outcomes either. Because the trial ended with no participants completing it and most outcome data was not reported, the information available from this submission is very 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.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04129411 · results posted 20 May 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 5 participants, all of whom completed the study. The trial was looking at radiofrequency ablation (RFA) — a procedure that uses heat to treat thyroid nodules (small growths on the thyroid gland in the neck). The main thing being measured was whether the nodules got smaller after the procedure. The trial also tracked several other things, including pain during the procedure, whether nearby lymph nodes became enlarged, whether the cancer spread to other parts of the body, whether there were any complications at the treatment site, and whether participants' thyroid function changed over time. The reported data shows that the five participants had the following nodule volumes measured after treatment: 0.24 mL, 0.95 mL, 0.42 mL, 0.10 mL, and 0.04 mL. However, pre-procedure (before treatment) volume figures were not reported in the submitted data, so it is not possible to describe the change in size from these numbers alone. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that 1 out of 5 participants reported pain related to the procedure. No participants were reported to have developed enlarged lymph nodes in the neck or spread of disease to distant parts of the body. No participants were reported to have experienced complications such as infection, bruising, or blood pooling at the treatment site. Regarding thyroid function, the reported data shows some variation across participants at different time points, though the full breakdown of categories and timepoints was not clearly labelled 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 ↗
NCT04579757 · results posted 8 May 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04579757) enrolled 87 people in total across two phases. The first phase tested two different doses of a combination of two medicines — surufatinib and tislelizumab — in 12 people, to see how the body tolerated the treatment and to find a suitable dose. The second phase then enrolled 75 people across seven groups, each made up of participants with a different type of cancer, including colorectal cancer, certain lung cancers, cancers of the digestive and hormonal system (neuroendocrine tumours), stomach cancer, a soft-tissue cancer called undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), and a rare thyroid cancer. The main things being measured in the second phase were how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, along with tracking unwanted medical events in the first phase. The reported data shows that in the first (dose-finding) phase, 1 out of 6 people at the lower dose and 2 out of 6 at the higher dose experienced what the trial defined as a "dose-limiting toxicity" — that is, an unwanted medical event serious enough to potentially limit the dose used. All 12 participants in this phase experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence after starting treatment). For the seven cancer groups in the second phase, the proportion of participants whose tumours were recorded as shrinking or disappearing (called the objective response rate) varied considerably: 6.7% in the colorectal cancer group, 0% in the thoracic neuroendocrine tumour group, 15.0% in the digestive/hormonal neuroendocrine tumour group, 13.3% in the small cell lung cancer group, 33.3% in the stomach cancer group, 44.4% in the UPS group, and 0% in the rare thyroid cancer group. The reported data also shows a measure called "disease control rate" — the proportion of participants whose cancer either shrank or stayed stable for at least seven weeks — which ranged from 26.7% (small cell lung cancer group) to 70.0% (digestive/hormonal neuroendocrine tumour group) across the seven groups. The length of time participants went without their cancer getting worse (called progression-free survival) ranged from 1.4 months to 9.6 months across the groups, though the data was not reported for the UPS 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 ↗
NCT04420689 · results posted 8 May 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 27 people in total, split across seven groups. The first five groups (3 people each) received different doses of a drug called ALM-488 — 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, 500 mg, or 600 mg — to help find the right dose. The remaining two groups (6 people each) tested different timing windows between receiving ALM-488 and a follow-up procedure. The trial was primarily measuring whether participants experienced any unwanted side effects that were linked to ALM-488, using a standard medical checklist. It also tracked how quickly the drug reached its highest level in the bloodstream. The reported data shows that across all seven groups, zero out of 27 participants were recorded as having side effects attributed to ALM-488, based on the checklist used. Regarding how quickly the drug peaked in the bloodstream, the reported data shows the peak was reached at around 0.40 to 0.50 hours (roughly 24 to 30 minutes) after the infusion, with small differences between groups. No other outcome numbers were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so further details are not available here. It is worth noting that 25 of the 27 participants completed the study; one person in the 600 mg dose group and one person in the 3–5 hour timing group did not complete it, though the reasons 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.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04281875 · results posted 17 October 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04281875) enrolled 160 adults who were undergoing thyroid surgery (total thyroidectomy). Participants were divided into two equal groups of 80: one group whose surgeon used a special near-infrared light-based detection technology (called NIRAF) alongside normal eyesight to locate the parathyroid glands (small glands near the thyroid that help control calcium levels), and one group where surgeons relied on normal eyesight alone. All 160 participants completed the study. The main thing being measured was how many parathyroid glands the surgical team could confidently identify during the operation. The reported data shows that, on average, surgeons in the NIRAF-assisted group identified 2.81 parathyroid glands per patient, compared with 2.75 in the group using eyesight alone. For the secondary outcomes, the trial also tracked low calcium or low parathyroid hormone levels after surgery at three time points. Within 24 hours of surgery, this was recorded in 19 participants in the NIRAF group and 16 in the standard group. In the weeks following surgery (the first post-surgical visit), it was recorded in 3 participants in the NIRAF group and 5 in the standard group. At six months or beyond (considered permanent), zero participants in either group met that definition. The reported data also shows that the average number of tissue samples sent for laboratory confirmation during surgery was very low in both groups (0.08 per patient in the NIRAF group and 0.10 in the standard group). The total number of parathyroid glands that were accidentally removed or lost their blood supply and needed to be re-implanted was 43 in the NIRAF group and 39 in the standard 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 ↗
NCT02383927 · results posted 11 July 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02383927) looked at a drug called tipifarnib across 63 people in total, divided into four groups: Cohort 1 (13 people), Cohort 2/Stage 1 (10 people), Cohort 2/Stage 2 (30 people), and Cohort 3 (10 people). The trial was measuring how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called the objective response rate, or ORR), as well as tracking things like how long people went without their disease getting worse, how long any tumour shrinkage lasted, and how long participants survived overall. It is worth noting that the reported data shows that none of the participants were recorded as having "completed" the study — all participants were listed under "not completed." The reported data shows that for the primary measure — the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank significantly or disappeared — the results varied between groups. In Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Stage 1, 0% of participants met this threshold. In Cohort 2/Stage 2, 43.5% of participants met this threshold, and in Cohort 3, 28.6% did. For the secondary measure tracking side effects (called treatment-emergent adverse events, meaning any unwanted medical events that occurred after starting the drug), all participants in every group experienced at least one such event. Within those, a subset of events were classed as serious: 6 of 13 in Cohort 1, 5 of 10 in Cohort 2/Stage 1, 20 of 30 in Cohort 2/Stage 2, and 9 of 10 in Cohort 3. The reported data also shows additional pre-specified measures. The median time before disease progressed or death occurred (progression-free survival) was 4.6 months for Cohort 1, 6.4 months for Cohort 2/Stage 1, 5.5 months for Cohort 2/Stage 2, and 8.0 months for Cohort 3. The median overall survival was 36.7, 13.8, 10.8, and 10.4 months for Cohorts 1 through 3 respectively. For how long tumour shrinkage lasted (duration of response), the median was 6.2 months in Cohort 2/Stage 2; for Cohort 3 this figure was not reported, and data for Cohorts 1 and 2/Stage 1 were not reported (as no participants in those groups met the response threshold). 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 ↗
NCT04782856 · results posted 14 June 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04782856) enrolled 13 people in total — 7 in a "Single Therapy" group and 6 in a "Combination Therapy" group. All 7 people in the Single Therapy group completed the study, while 5 of the 6 in the Combination Therapy group completed it (one person did not finish). The trial was measuring short-term changes in weight, the number of calories the body burns over 24 hours (called energy expenditure), cholesterol levels in the blood, and quality of life related to thyroid conditions. The reported data shows the following numbers for the two groups across the main outcomes. For weight (measured in kilograms), the Single Therapy group showed a change of +1.7 kg, while the Combination Therapy group showed a change of −0.76 kg. For 24-hour energy expenditure (calories burned per day), the Single Therapy group showed a change of −39 calories, and the Combination Therapy group showed a change of +25 calories. For cholesterol (measured in mg/dL, a standard unit for blood tests), the Single Therapy group showed a change of +43 mg/dL, while the Combination Therapy group showed a change of −35 mg/dL. The reported data also shows quality-of-life scores using a thyroid-specific questionnaire (ThyPRO-39), where higher scores indicate greater improvement. Across the six reported domains, Single Therapy scores ranged from −2.7 to +23.8, and Combination Therapy scores ranged from +5 to +45. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial, and the quality-of-life results covered multiple separate areas of the questionnaire rather than a single overall figure. 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 ↗
NCT04211337 · results posted 13 June 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04211337) compared two treatment groups in people with a specific type of cancer: 193 participants received selpercatinib (Group A) and 98 participants received either cabozantinib or vandetanib (Group B). The trial was primarily measuring how long participants went without their disease getting worse or dying — a timeframe called "progression-free survival." It also looked at a number of secondary measures, including how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, how long those responses lasted, and how long participants survived overall. The reported data shows that for the main measure — time without disease worsening — a final number was only reported for Group B (cabozantinib or vandetanib), at 16.76 months; the corresponding figure for Group A (selpercatinib) was listed as "NA," meaning a final result was not available at the time of reporting. For the secondary measures, the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank or disappeared was reported as 69.4% in Group A and 38.8% in Group B. The length of time those responses lasted was reported for Group B at 16.56 months, while Group A's figure was again listed as not available. A measure called "treatment failure-free survival" — essentially how long participants stayed on treatment without their disease worsening or stopping due to intolerability — was reported as 13.93 months for Group B, with Group A's figure not available. The reported data shows that figures for overall survival and a longer-term progression measure (PFS2) 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.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03215095 · results posted 22 March 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 11 participants, all of whom completed the study. The trial looked at a combination treatment — radioiodine (a type of radiation therapy commonly used for thyroid conditions) together with a drug called durvalumab (also known as Medi4736). The main thing researchers were measuring was the number of participants who experienced what are called "dose-limiting toxicities" — that is, serious side effects severe enough to limit or stop the treatment dose. A secondary measure looked at how participants' tumours responded, using a standard set of criteria called RECIST, which categorises tumour changes into response categories. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure, 0 out of 11 participants experienced a dose-limiting toxicity, while all 11 participants were assessed for this outcome. For the secondary measure of best overall tumour response, the reported data shows that 2 participants fell into one response category, 7 into another, and 2 into a third category. However, the specific labels for each of those three categories (for example, whether they represent tumour shrinkage, stable disease, or growth) were not included in the structured data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those details 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 ↗
NCT02244463 · results posted 12 January 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02244463) enrolled 59 people across two stages. The first stage (Phase I) involved 19 participants split into smaller groups to test different doses of the study treatment, with the goal of finding the highest dose that could be given without too many serious side effects — this is called the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD). The second stage (Phase II) enrolled 40 participants split into two groups based on their type of thyroid cancer: 18 people with anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC, a fast-growing form) and 22 people with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC, a slower-growing form). The Phase II stage measured how many people were still alive and their cancer had not grown after a set period of time. The reported data shows that in Phase I, no participants at any of the three dose levels experienced what the trial defined as a "dose-limiting toxicity" (a serious side effect serious enough to cap the dose). The MTD recorded was 5 mg. For the secondary measure of serious treatment-related side effects (graded 3–5, meaning more severe), the numbers reported were: 0 of 3 participants at dose level 1, 1 of 3 at dose level 2, 0 of 3 at dose level 3, 3 of 10 in the dose expansion group, 4 of 18 in the ATC group, and 8 of 22 in the DTC group. In Phase II, the reported data shows that 11.1% of ATC participants were alive and progression-free at 4 months, and 45.5% of DTC participants were alive and progression-free at 6 months. For overall tumour response, 0% of ATC participants and approximately 1% (reported as a value of 1, likely meaning 1 participant rather than a percentage — the exact figure as submitted) of DTC participants showed a measurable tumour reduction meeting the trial's response criteria; the precise percentage for the DTC group was not clearly stated in the submitted data beyond this value. 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 ↗
NCT01709435 · results posted 21 December 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial studied a drug called cabozantinib s-malate in children and young people with certain solid tumours. A total of 41 participants were enrolled across six different dosing groups, which were part of three study sections (called Part A, Part B, and Part PK). The trial was mainly trying to find the highest dose that could be given without too many serious side effects — known as the maximum tolerated dose — and also looked at how the body processed the drug and how tumours responded. The reported data shows that the recommended dose for future studies was identified as 40 mg/m² (a dose calculated based on body surface area). When looking at serious side effects that occurred in the first treatment cycle (called "dose-limiting toxicities"), the numbers reported were: 0 out of those evaluable at the 30 mg/m² level in Part A, 0 at 40 mg/m² in Part A, 1 at 55 mg/m² in Part A, 1 at 40 mg/m² in Part B, 4 at 40 mg/m² in Part PK, and 2 at 55 mg/m² in Part PK. For tumour response (meaning tumours either disappeared completely or shrank by at least 30%), the reported data shows: 0 responses at the 30 mg/m² and 40 mg/m² levels in Part A, 1 at 55 mg/m² in Part A, 2 at 40 mg/m² in Part B, 0 at 40 mg/m² in Part PK, and 1 at 55 mg/m² in Part PK. The reported median overall survival (the midpoint for time until death across each group) ranged from 24 days in one group up to 1,034 days in another, though these figures reflect very small numbers of participants in each group. Almost all participants did not complete the study, with only 1 of 41 recorded as having completed it. The reported data also shows changes in a blood marker called VEGF-R2 (a protein linked to blood vessel growth), with all groups showing a decrease from the starting level after around three to four weeks of treatment — the reductions ranged from around 1,121 to 2,519 pg/ml (a unit of measurement for concentration) depending on the 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 ↗
NCT02973997 · results posted 24 October 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02973997) enrolled two separate groups of participants — 30 people in Cohort 1 and 25 people in Cohort 2, for a total of 55 participants. The two groups appear to have had different types of thyroid cancer, and the trial was measuring how often participants' tumours showed a response to the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib, as well as tracking survival and side effects over time. Of the 55 people who started the trial, only 10 completed it (8 from Cohort 1 and 2 from Cohort 2), with the remainder not completing the study — the data does not specify why. The reported data shows that for Cohort 1, the complete response rate (meaning no detectable tumour remaining) was 0% of participants. For Cohort 2, the confirmed response rate (meaning a meaningful reduction in tumour size) was reported as 16% of participants. Looking at a secondary measure tracking how many participants experienced serious side effects (graded 3 or above on a standard severity scale, where higher numbers mean more severe), the reported data shows 26 out of 30 participants in Cohort 1 and 14 out of 25 in Cohort 2 experienced at least one such event. For survival without the disease progressing (getting worse), the reported figures were 96.6% for Cohort 1 and 48.0% for Cohort 2. For overall survival at 12 months, the reported data shows 96.6% of Cohort 1 participants and 76.0% of Cohort 2 participants were recorded as alive. Results for the biomarker analysis component of the trial 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 ↗
NCT03690388 · results posted 18 May 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03690388) enrolled 187 people in total — 125 received a medicine called cabozantinib and 62 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring two main things: how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called "progression-free survival"), and how many participants had their disease visibly shrink or disappear (called "objective response rate"). The reported data shows that for progression-free survival — the time until the disease showed signs of growing or the person passed away — the figure for the cabozantinib group was listed as "NA" (meaning this particular summary number was not reported in the data submitted), while the placebo group's figure was 1.9 months. For the objective response rate, the reported data shows that 15% of participants in the cabozantinib group had their disease shrink or disappear (a complete or partial response), compared with 0% in the placebo group. It is also worth noting that of the 62 people in the placebo group, 36 did not complete the study, as was also the case for 36 of the 125 people in the cabozantinib 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 ↗
NCT00936858 · results posted 28 September 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 50 people took part in this trial, all assigned to receive a drug called RAD001 (also known as everolimus). Ten of those participants had a specific type of thyroid cancer called medullary thyroid cancer. None of the 50 participants were recorded as having completed the trial. The trial was measuring how long people lived without their cancer growing (called progression-free survival), how many people's tumours shrank or disappeared (objective response rate), how long people lived overall, and — for the medullary thyroid cancer group only — whether their quality of life changed over time. The reported data shows that the median time participants went without their disease getting worse was 12.5 months. Median here means the middle value — half of participants reached that point sooner, and half took longer. The reported data also shows that 6% of participants had their tumour shrink or disappear during treatment. For overall survival — the length of time from the start of the study until death from any cause — the median reported figure was 32.7 months. For the smaller group of 10 people with medullary thyroid cancer, quality of life was measured using a symptom questionnaire scored from 0 to 10 (where lower scores mean fewer or less severe symptoms). The reported data shows a mean change in score of −0.0621 from the start of the trial to week 8, meaning the average score was almost unchanged. It is worth noting that this quality-of-life data was only reported for this smaller subgroup, not for all 50 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 ↗
NCT02393690 · results posted 3 August 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 58 people with a type of thyroid cancer that had come back or spread. Participants were split into two groups: 28 people received a drug called selumetinib combined with radioactive iodine treatment, and 30 people received a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient) combined with the same radioactive iodine treatment. The trial was primarily measuring how many people in each group showed a meaningful shrinkage or disappearance of their cancer at the 6-month mark. The reported data shows that at 6 months, 7 out of 28 participants in the selumetinib group were classified as responders (meaning their tumours either shrank significantly or disappeared), compared with 2 out of 30 in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that the selumetinib group had a median progression-free survival — that is, the midpoint estimate of how long participants went without their disease getting worse — of 19 months, compared with 10.2 months in the placebo group. A blood marker called thyroglobulin, which can be used to track thyroid cancer activity, was reported to have decreased by an average of 29.1% from starting levels in the selumetinib group, while it increased by an average of 4.3% in the placebo group. Regarding side effects, 6 out of 28 participants in the selumetinib group experienced serious adverse events (graded as severe or higher), compared with 1 out of 30 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 ↗
NCT03174925 · results posted 8 July 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 55 participants, with 52 completing the study and 3 not completing it. The trial was looking at thyroid nodules — small lumps found in the thyroid gland in the neck — and whether a scanning technique called elastography could measure how stiff those nodules are. Elastography works by assessing how firm or hard tissue is, which researchers wanted to compare against whether each nodule turned out to be cancerous, non-cancerous (benign), or uncertain (indeterminate). Cancer status was determined either by a fine needle aspiration biopsy (where a thin needle is used to collect a small sample of cells) or by examining the nodule after surgical removal. The reported data shows that tissue stiffness was measured in metres per second — a unit used by the elastography equipment to express how firm the tissue is. Three separate figures were reported for the three nodule categories: nodules confirmed as non-cancerous had a median stiffness of 2.7 metres per second; nodules confirmed as cancerous had a median stiffness of 3.8 metres per second; and nodules that were classified as indeterminate had a median stiffness of 2.7 metres per second. A "median" is simply the middle value when all measurements are lined up in order. The reported data does not include the standard deviation figures (a measure of how spread out the individual results were) for each group, so those were 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 ↗
NCT01885195 · results posted 21 February 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 110 participants who all received a drug called binimetinib (also known as MEK162). The trial was designed to measure how many participants — across different cancer types including solid tumours, multiple myeloma (a blood cancer), and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML, another blood cancer) — showed a response or their disease stayed stable for at least 16 weeks. It is noted that none of the 110 participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, with all 110 listed under "not completed." The reported data shows that for participants with solid tumours, 23.1% met the threshold for what the trial called "clinical benefit" at 16 weeks — meaning their tumour had either shrunk, partially shrunk, or had not grown enough to be classified as getting worse. For multiple myeloma participants, the reported clinical benefit rate was 0% at 16 weeks. For those with AML, the reported clinical benefit figure was 33.3%. When looking at a stricter measure — participants whose tumours actually shrank significantly (called the "overall response rate") — the reported figure for solid tumours was 2.9%, while for multiple myeloma it was 33.3%, and for AML it was also 33.3%. It is worth noting these percentages apply to the number of people in each specific cancer group, not the full 110, so the actual numbers of individuals involved in each figure are not detailed in the reported 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 ↗
NCT02702388 · results posted 11 January 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02702388) involved 152 people in total — 75 received a 24 mg daily dose of lenvatinib and 77 received an 18 mg daily dose. The trial was measuring two main things up to 24 weeks: how many participants had their tumours shrink or disappear (called the "objective response rate"), and how many experienced serious side effects (graded as severe or worse) during that same period. It also tracked how long it took before the disease got worse or participants passed away, and other safety-related measures. The reported data shows that, by the 24-week mark, 57.3% of participants in the 24 mg group and 40.3% in the 18 mg group had their tumours either completely disappear or shrink by at least 30%. Regarding serious side effects in the first 24 weeks, 61.3% of the 24 mg group and 57.1% of the 18 mg group experienced side effects rated as severe or above (Grade 3 or higher on a standard medical scale). For the secondary measure of how long participants went without the disease getting worse (progression-free survival), a figure was only reported for the 18 mg group — 24.4 months — while the 24 mg group's figure was not reported in the submitted data. The measures for how long until the next treatment stopped working, and the time until people stopped treatment due to a side effect, were also 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 ↗
NCT02138214 · results posted 21 December 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02138214) enrolled 90 people across three groups of 30 each. The groups were: people who had thyroid surgery without a procedure called central neck dissection (Arm I, "no CND"), people who had the surgery with central neck dissection (Arm II, "CND"), and a third standard-of-care group (Arm III, "SOC"). The trial was measuring things related to calcium levels and parathyroid hormone (a chemical that helps control calcium) in the body after surgery — specifically how often low calcium-related problems occurred, how much calcium supplement participants needed, and whether any symptoms of low calcium appeared in the weeks following surgery. Note that the primary outcome results reported only compared Arms I and II; no figures for Arm III were included in the submitted data. The reported data shows the following numbers for the two compared groups. On the day after surgery, 24.1% of participants in the CND group and 33.3% in the no-CND group had a parathyroid hormone level below 10 pg/ml (a low reading). By 12 days after surgery, average blood calcium levels were 9.39 mg/dL in the CND group and 9.13 mg/dL in the no-CND group. In the first two weeks, participants in the CND group consumed an average total of about 21,877 mg of calcium supplements, compared with about 25,470 mg in the no-CND group. Eight participants in the CND group and six in the no-CND group experienced clinically significant low-calcium symptoms in those first two weeks. For symptom severity (scored 1–5), the reported data shows mean mild-symptom occurrences of 3.0 (CND) versus 2.50 (no CND), and mean severe-symptom occurrences of 3.36 (CND) versus 1.42 (no CND). At six months after surgery, none of the participants in the CND group still required both calcium and calcitriol (a vitamin D medicine), compared with 3 participants in the no-CND 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 ↗
NCT02946918 · results posted 1 December 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two forms of thyroid medication — tablets and gelcaps — in a small group of people being treated for a thyroid condition. A total of 14 people started the trial (6 in the tablets group and 8 in the gelcaps group), though only 10 completed it (5 in each group). The trial was measuring whether each form of the medication could bring a hormone level in the blood — called TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone) — into a specific target range over 18 weeks, as well as looking at how many dose adjustments were needed, how participants rated their quality of life, and how satisfied they were with their treatment. The reported data shows that at 18 weeks, 2 out of 5 participants in the tablets group and 4 out of 5 in the gelcaps group had their TSH level within the target range. On average, participants in the tablets group had their dose adjusted 2.0 times, compared with 1.25 times for those in the gelcaps group. For quality of life, participants completed a survey scored from 0 to 450, where a lower score means better quality of life. The reported data shows the tablets group's average score changed by −1.2 points and the gelcaps group's by −29.6 points (meaning both groups' scores moved in the direction of better quality of life, with the gelcaps group showing a larger change). For treatment satisfaction — scored from 0 to 42, where higher means more satisfied — the tablets group averaged 39.2 and the gelcaps group averaged 39.0. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial, 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.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT02432274 · results posted 17 September 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02432274) looked at a medicine called lenvatinib in children and young people with certain solid tumour cancers. The trial was organised into several groups: some participants received lenvatinib on its own at different doses to find the best dose to use (Cohorts 1 and 2), while others received it combined with two chemotherapy medicines — etoposide and ifosfamide — again at different doses (Cohorts 3A and 3B). In total, 97 participants started the trial across all groups, and 97 were treated. The trial measured things like the best dose to use, whether tumours shrank, and how many participants were still alive without their cancer worsening after four months. The reported data shows that for participants receiving lenvatinib on its own, the recommended dose identified was 14 mg per square metre of body surface area. The same dose — 14 mg/m² — was also identified as the recommended dose when lenvatinib was combined with the chemotherapy medicines. For the single-agent group focused on a type of thyroid cancer (Cohort 2A, 1 participant), one participant showed a partial response, meaning their tumour shrank by at least 30%. For the osteosarcoma (bone cancer) group receiving lenvatinib alone (Cohort 2B, 31 participants), the reported data shows that approximately 32% of participants were alive and without their cancer worsening at the four-month mark. In the combination-treatment expansion group (Cohort 3B, 20 participants), approximately 67% were alive and without worsening at four months. Across most other groups, no complete or partial tumour 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00625846 · results posted 26 February 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 152 people across four groups, all of whom had thyroid cancer of different types. The three main groups covered differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC, 39 people), medullary thyroid cancer (MTC, 35 people), and anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC, 16 people). A fourth expansion group of 62 more people with differentiated thyroid cancer was also included. The trial was primarily measuring how often tumours shrank or disappeared — called the "overall response rate" — in response to the study treatment, using standard imaging-based criteria that require the tumour to shrink by at least 30% on two separate scans at least 8 weeks apart. The reported data shows that, for the three main groups, the percentage of participants whose tumours met the response criteria was 49% in the DTC group, 14% in the MTC group, and 0% in the ATC group. In the separate DTC expansion group, the reported confirmed response rate was 37%. For a secondary measure looking at how many participants were alive and had not had their disease progress at a set time point, the reported figures were: 71% of the DTC group and 68.6% of the MTC group were progression-free at 6 months; and 26.7% of the ATC group were progression-free at 3 months (a shorter timeframe used for that group). Another secondary measure tracked the percentage of participants in each group who experienced a serious side effect (graded 3 or higher) that was considered possibly, probably, or definitely related to the treatment — the reported figures were 40% in the DTC group, 46% in the MTC group, 53% in the ATC group, and 53% in the DTC expansion group. Data for the blood marker measurements 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00654238 · results posted 18 November 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 59 people with metastatic thyroid carcinoma (thyroid cancer that had spread to other parts of the body). All participants received a drug called sorafenib (also known as BAY 43-9006). Of the 59 who started, 55 completed the study and 4 did not. The trial was measuring how the cancer responded to the treatment — specifically whether tumours shrank, stayed the same, or grew — and how long participants went without their cancer getting worse. The reported data shows that, using a standard set of measurement rules called RECIST (a method doctors use to measure changes in tumour size on scans), no participants had a complete response (meaning no tumours fully disappeared). The reported data shows 16 participants had a partial response, meaning their tumours shrank by at least 30%. A further 22 participants were recorded as having stable disease, meaning their cancer did not grow significantly during treatment. The remaining participants fell into other categories including disease progression or were not evaluable. In total, the numbers across all response categories across the 55 assessed participants are as reported above; some individual sub-group figures were also listed in the data. For the secondary outcome, the reported data shows a median progression-free survival of 77 weeks across all 55 treated patients. "Median progression-free survival" means that half of the participants went at least 77 weeks before their cancer showed signs of getting worse, based on a standard statistical method called Kaplan-Meier analysis. No other secondary outcome figures were 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 ↗
NCT02657369 · results posted 15 October 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02657369) enrolled 34 participants, all of whom received a daily dose of lenvatinib (24 mg). The trial was measuring how a tumour responded to the treatment, how long participants lived without their disease getting worse, and how long participants survived overall. Notably, the reported data shows that none of the 34 participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study — all 34 were listed as "not completed," which may reflect that the study was terminated early by the sponsor. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — the proportion of participants whose tumours showed a meaningful reduction in size (called the "objective response rate") — was 3%, meaning roughly 1 in 34 participants met that threshold. For the secondary outcomes, around 36% of participants were reported to be alive and without their disease progressing at the 12-week mark. At six months, approximately 41% of participants were reported to still be alive. The reported middle-point figure (called the "median") for how long participants went without disease progression was 2.6 months, and the median for overall survival was 3.2 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.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT02768753 · results posted 27 September 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two different surgical approaches for thyroid surgery performed through small cuts in the underarm and breast area, rather than the neck. A total of 60 people took part — 30 in the "ABBA" group (Axillary Bilateral-Breast Approach) and 30 in the "BABA" group (Bilateral Axillo-Breast Approach). All 60 participants completed the study. The trial measured post-operative pain in the first 24 hours, patient satisfaction with the appearance of their scars, voice quality, and swallowing ability. The reported data shows that for pain in the first 24 hours, scored on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain), the ABBA group averaged 2.13 and the BABA group averaged 2.33 — both sitting in what the scale describes as the mild pain range. For cosmetic satisfaction, scored from 1 (extremely satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), the ABBA group averaged 3.17 and the BABA group averaged 3.90. For voice quality, scored from 0 (best) to 120 (worst), the ABBA group averaged 10.27 and the BABA group averaged 10.70 — both falling in the "best" range of the scale. For swallowing, scored from 1 (able to swallow smoothly in one go) to 5 (frequent coughing, unable to swallow fully), both groups averaged approximately 1.2–1.3. 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 ↗
NCT00784303 · results posted 1 August 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 117 people with thyroid cancer across two groups: 58 people with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) and 59 people with medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). All participants in both groups completed the study. The trial was measuring how often tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "objective response rate"), as well as how the study drug lenvatinib moved through the body (its blood concentration levels), and changes in certain hormone and protein levels in the blood over time. The reported data shows that, among the DTC group, 50% of participants had their tumours shrink or disappear based on scans reviewed by an independent team. In the MTC group, the reported figure was 35.6%. For blood concentration of lenvatinib (measured as the amount of drug in the bloodstream over a steady period of time), the DTC group had a reported average of 3,840 ng·h/mL and the MTC group 3,350 ng·h/mL — these figures only cover participants who were taking the 24 mg daily dose. The reported data also shows changes in thyroid-related hormones over time: free T4 (a thyroid hormone) levels generally shifted downward from starting levels in both groups across most measured time points, while TSH (a hormone that signals the thyroid gland) levels showed increases from starting levels across most time points, particularly in the MTC group. A protein linked to DTC called thyroglobulin showed percentage decreases from baseline ranging roughly from around −20% to nearly −80% at various time points. A hormone linked to MTC called calcitonin showed percentage decreases from baseline ranging roughly from around −29% to about −50% across measured time 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 ↗
NCT01226914 · results posted 5 February 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 55 people in total — 28 in the EVICEL group and 27 in the placebo group. All participants completed the trial with no dropouts. The study was measuring post-operative wound drainage (the amount of fluid collected from a wound drain after surgery) in people who received either a spray called EVICEL™ or a placebo (an inactive, dummy version of the spray) during their procedure. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — the amount of wound drainage fluid collected — was measured in millilitres (mL). The EVICEL group had a reported drainage figure of 96.3 mL, while the placebo group had a reported figure of 120 mL. The trial also intended to measure other things such as drain time, hospital stay length, and adverse events (unwanted health events during the study), however specific numbers for those additional measures were not reported in the structured 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 ↗
NCT00100828 · results posted 6 December 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 6 participants, all of whom received a treatment called irinotecan. The trial was designed to look at how often this treatment led to a measurable response in people with a type of thyroid cancer called metastatic medullary thyroid cancer (meaning cancer that had spread to other parts of the body). None of the 6 participants completed the study, though the data does not explain the reasons why. The reported data shows that the primary thing being measured was the "response rate" — that is, how many participants showed a reduction or change in their cancer after receiving irinotecan. Unfortunately, no numerical results for this outcome were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so it is not possible to describe what the measurements showed. No secondary outcome results were reported either. 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 ↗
NCT01025453 · results posted 15 August 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 37 people with a type of thyroid cancer that had stopped responding to radioactive iodine treatment (known as I-131 refractory thyroid cancer). All 37 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring how the tumours responded to a combination of two medicines — sorafenib and temsirolimus — and also looked at how long participants stayed on treatment, how many went a period of time without their cancer getting worse, and what side effects were recorded. The reported data shows that, using a standard set of rules for measuring tumour changes (called RECIST), 8 participants had their tumours shrink by 30% or more (called a partial response), and 1 participant had all measurable tumours disappear (called a complete response). A further 21 participants were also recorded in the response data, though the specific category for this group (for example, stable disease) was not clearly labelled in the submitted results. For how long participants stayed on treatment, the reported data shows figures of 5.2 months and 6.7 months, described in relation to whether participants had a particular gene change (called a BRAF mutation) — however, which figure belongs to which group was not specified in the data. The reported data also shows that 30.5% of participants went a defined period without their cancer getting worse (progression-free survival). All 37 participants were assessed for side effects, though the specific details of those side effects were not 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 ↗
NCT00054756 · results posted 8 August 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 96 participants, all of whom received a substance called Thyrotropin Releasing Hormone (TRH). The trial was measuring how the body's thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) — a chemical the body produces to help control the thyroid gland — responded after TRH was given. Of the 96 people who started the trial, 94 completed it and 2 did not. The reported data shows that the average TSH level measured in participants' blood after receiving TRH was 11.47 mcIU/mL (micronternational units per millilitre, which is simply the standard unit used to measure this particular substance in blood). This was the only outcome measure included in the submitted results. No secondary outcome data appears to have been reported to ClinicalTrials.gov for this trial, so no further numbers are available to describe. 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 ↗
NCT00416949 · results posted 18 July 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 9 people, all of whom were in a single group receiving patient-specific three-dimensional radiation dosimetry (a method of calculating how much radiation is absorbed by tumours in each individual patient). Of the 9 participants who started the trial, 4 completed it, while 5 did not complete it. The trial was measuring how much radiation dose — in units called Gray (Gy), a standard unit for measuring absorbed radiation — was delivered to tumours using this personalised dosimetry approach. The reported data shows that the single outcome measure recorded was the tumour absorbed dose. The average figure reported for the group was 6.6 Gray (Gy). No other outcome measures — such as secondary outcomes relating to safety or other effects — appear to have been reported in the structured data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. Because only one group was studied and no comparison group was included, the data does not report on how this figure compares to any alternative approach. It is worth noting that only 4 of the 9 participants completed the trial, and no explanation for the other 5 not completing was included in the reported 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 ↗
NCT02112370 · results posted 4 August 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 148 people in total — 74 in each group. All 148 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was comparing two types of injection given during surgery: a normal saline (salt water) injection versus an injection containing ropivacaine (a numbing medicine) combined with epinephrine (a medicine that narrows blood vessels). The main thing being measured was pain scores at the surgical site over the first 12 hours after the operation, using a scale from 0 (minimal pain) to 10 (maximum pain). The trial also tracked blood pressure, heart rate, blood loss, and how long the operation took. The reported data shows that pain scores at the surgical site were recorded at several time points across the first 12 hours. At the earliest time point, the saline group scored 4.93 and the ropivacaine/epinephrine group scored 4.12. At a mid-point, scores were 4.50 versus 3.69, then 3.99 versus 3.16. At a later time point, however, the pattern appeared to shift, with scores of 3.74 (saline) versus 4.51 (ropivacaine/epinephrine), followed by 0.65 versus 0.28, and finally 1.47 versus 1.65. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows maximum systolic blood pressure during surgery was 142 mmHg (saline) and 145 mmHg (ropivacaine/epinephrine); maximum diastolic blood pressure was 91 mmHg versus 86 mmHg; and maximum heart rate was 88 beats per minute versus 99 beats per minute. Estimated blood loss was 30 ml in the saline group and 18 ml in the ropivacaine/epinephrine group, and average operation time was 163.6 minutes versus 155.3 minutes respectively. It is worth noting that the data as submitted does not include labels for exactly when each pain score time point was measured within the 12-hour window, so the precise timing of each individual reading cannot be confirmed 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 ↗
NCT01927887 · results posted 6 June 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 12 participants, all of whom completed the study. The trial was testing a type of MRI scan that uses tiny particles called Lymphotrophic Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles (LSN) — essentially very small magnetic particles injected into the body to help make lymph nodes (small glands that are part of the immune system) show up more clearly on a scan. The goal was to see how well this specialised MRI could identify whether lymph nodes contained cancer or not, compared to examining the actual removed nodes under a microscope in a laboratory (which was used as the benchmark for accuracy). The reported data shows two main measurements were recorded. The first was "sensitivity" — meaning how well the scan picked up lymph nodes that the laboratory confirmed were affected — and this was reported as 85.5% of excised (surgically removed) nodes. The second was "specificity" — meaning how often the scan correctly identified nodes that the laboratory confirmed were not affected — and this was reported as 89.3% of true negative nodes. No other outcome data appears to have been reported in the submitted results. It is worth noting that only 12 people took part in this trial, which is a very small number, and there was only one group — meaning there was no comparison group receiving a different scan or no scan. 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 ↗
NCT00519896 · results posted 25 April 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 35 people, all of whom received the same treatment — a combination described as enzyme inhibitor therapy and antiangiogenesis therapy (two types of medicine that work on different biological pathways involved in tumour growth). Of the 35 who started, 33 completed the study and 2 did not. The trial was primarily looking at how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, and it also tracked how long it took for tumours to start growing again, as well as recording certain side effects. The reported data shows that 11 out of 35 participants met the criteria for an "overall response" — meaning their tumours either disappeared completely or shrank by at least 30% as measured on scans. For the time-to-tumour-progression measure (how long, on average, before the disease started getting worse), the reported figure was 12.8 months. Regarding side effects, the trial only recorded those rated as "grade 3 or higher" — meaning more severe in nature. The reported data shows counts of 4, 12, 6, 6, 11, and 1 participants across several categories of serious side effects, though the specific labels for each category were not included in the data provided here. It is worth noting that this was a single-group study — there was no comparison group receiving a different or dummy treatment — so all figures reflect only the group that received the study 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 ↗
NCT01876784 · results posted 13 March 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 238 people in total — 119 in a group that received vandetanib throughout the study, and 119 in a group that started on a placebo before switching to vandetanib. The trial was primarily measuring **progression-free survival (PFS)** — that is, how long (in months) participants went without their disease getting worse or dying. It also looked at a number of secondary measures, including overall survival, tumour size changes, how many participants showed a measurable reduction in tumour size, time until pain worsened, and how long any tumour response lasted. The reported data shows that for the primary measure, the vandetanib group had a median PFS of 10.0 months, compared with 5.7 months in the placebo group. (Median here simply means the midpoint — half the people in each group reached that point sooner, half later.) For overall survival — meaning how long people lived from the start of the trial — the data was reported as "NA" (not available) for both groups, meaning a final figure was not reported. Regarding tumour size at week 36, the vandetanib group showed an average increase of about 23%, and the placebo group about 22% — both groups' tumours grew on average, though these figures reflect participants still in the trial at that time point. For objective response (meaning a meaningful shrinkage in tumour size), 5% of participants in the vandetanib group met that threshold, compared with 0% in the placebo group. The reported data shows that time to worsening of pain was 5.6 months in the vandetanib group and 8.3 months in the placebo group. The duration of response figure for the vandetanib group was reported as "NA," and no data was reported for the placebo group for this 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 ↗
NCT01321554 · results posted 12 December 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 392 participants across two main phases. In the first (randomised) phase, 261 people received a daily oral dose of lenvatinib (24 mg) and 131 received a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient). A separate follow-on phase allowed an additional 115 participants who had been on placebo to switch to lenvatinib. The trial was primarily measuring how long people went without their disease getting worse — called "progression-free survival" — and also looked at how many people's tumours shrank, and how long people lived overall. The reported data shows that, in the randomised phase, the lenvatinib group went a median (the midpoint value across all participants) of 18.3 months before their disease progressed or they died, compared with 3.6 months in the placebo group. For the secondary measure of tumour response, the reported data shows that approximately 64.8% of participants in the lenvatinib group had their tumours meaningfully shrink (either fully or partially disappear), compared with 1.5% in the placebo group. For overall survival (how long people lived), the data was reported as "not available" — meaning those figures were not provided in the submitted results. A measure of how much lenvatinib was absorbed into the bloodstream was also reported (3,490 ng·h/mL), which is a laboratory measurement and not a clinical 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.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01286753 · results posted 7 September 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 51 people with cancer who were split into two groups: 26 who had never previously received a type of treatment called a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI — a targeted cancer medicine), and 25 who had already received one. The trial was measuring how tumours responded to the study treatment, how long any response lasted, and how long participants went without their disease getting worse. The reported data shows that in the TKI-naive group (those who had not previously had this type of medicine), 42.3% of participants had their tumours shrink to a meaningful degree — either disappearing completely or reducing in size by at least 30%. In the TKI-experienced group, that figure was 27.3%. When a broader measure called "clinical benefit rate" was looked at — which also counted people whose disease stayed stable for at least six months — the reported figures were 73.1% for the TKI-naive group and 54.5% for the TKI-experienced group. For those whose tumours did respond, the reported data shows the response lasted a median (middle value) of 9.5 months in the TKI-naive group and 7.4 months in the TKI-experienced group. The time reported before disease worsened was a median of 18.2 months and 8.9 months respectively. For overall survival (time from first treatment to death from any cause), the TKI-experienced group reported a median of 14.4 months; the figure for the TKI-naive group was not reported in the submitted data. It is also noted that the trial records show zero participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, though the reasons for this are not explained 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 ↗
NCT01013597 · results posted 11 July 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 13 people with thyroid cancer, all of whom received a drug called LBH589 (also known as panobinostat). Twelve of the 13 participants completed the trial, and one did not. The trial was primarily measuring whether the drug caused tumours to shrink, and also tracking how long it took for the cancer to progress, how long participants survived, changes in a thyroid cancer blood marker called thyroglobulin, and what side effects were recorded. The reported data shows that, when it came to the primary goal of tumour response, none of the 13 participants had their tumours shrink enough to count as a response under the measurement criteria used (which required either complete disappearance of tumours or a reduction of at least 30% in tumour size). For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that the average time until the cancer progressed was 3.6 months, and the average overall survival was 18.4 months. The average change in the thyroglobulin blood marker from the start to the end of treatment was reported as 4.58 ng/mL. Regarding side effects, the data shows that various unwanted effects considered at least possibly related to the drug were recorded across participants, with the number of people experiencing each individual side effect ranging from 1 to 8 out of the 13 participants — though the specific name of each side effect was not included in the data provided to ClinicalTrials.gov in a way that can be matched to each number. Data for the Notch1 protein expression measure 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 ↗
NCT00869050 · results posted 22 June 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 41 people, all of whom received a combination of two medicines called capecitabine and temozolomide. The trial was measuring how many participants showed a notable shrinkage or disappearance of their tumours while on this treatment. Of the 41 who started, 38 completed the study and 3 did not. The reported data shows two main things were measured. First, how many participants had a "partial response" — meaning their tumours shrank by at least 30% and stayed that way for more than four weeks, with no new tumours appearing. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 9 out of 41 participants met this definition. Second, how many participants had a "complete response" — meaning all signs of tumour disappeared for more than four weeks, with no new or growing lesions. The reported data shows 3 out of 41 participants met this definition. No other outcome measures, such as side effects or longer-term survival figures, were included in the structured results 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 ↗
NCT00428220 · results posted 6 November 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 223 participants, all of whom received the drug sunitinib. The study was an extension trial, meaning participants had already taken part in earlier ("parent") studies and were continuing onto sunitinib treatment here. The main thing the trial was set up to measure was how many participants experienced unwanted health events (called adverse events) while taking the drug — both those that could have been caused by anything, and those considered specifically related to the treatment. The reported data shows that out of 223 people who started the study, 221 experienced at least one adverse event of any cause. When looking only at events considered related to the treatment, 217 participants experienced at least one. The data also included breakdowns by how serious those events were, though the labels for each individual number within those breakdowns were not fully detailed in the structured data provided. It is also worth noting that zero participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the traditional sense — this appears to reflect the nature of the extension study design rather than meaning all participants stopped early. No data was reported for some breakdown categories, so those figures cannot be described further. The reported data also shows how long individual participants remained on sunitinib across the whole period (including their time in the earlier parent studies). These durations varied considerably from person to person — ranging from around 22 weeks for one participant up to approximately 228 weeks (roughly four and a half years) for another, suggesting a wide spread in how long different people stayed on the treatment across the combined 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 ↗
NCT01502410 · results posted 15 May 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 20 children or young people in total — 10 with a relapsed or treatment-resistant muscle cancer called rhabdomyosarcoma (Group 1), and 10 with a relapsed or treatment-resistant kidney cancer called Wilms tumour (Group 2). Two other planned groups — one for a type of liver cancer and one for a type of thyroid cancer — had no participants enrolled. The trial was testing a drug called sorafenib tosylate and was primarily looking at whether tumours shrank or disappeared, using a standard measurement tool called RECIST (which categorises tumours as completely gone, partially reduced, stable, or growing). None of the 20 participants completed the study. The reported data shows that, using the RECIST criteria, no participants in either group achieved a complete response (tumour fully disappearing) or a partial response (tumour shrinking by at least 30%). For the secondary outcome measuring the chance of being free from disease progression at six months, the reported figures were 10% for the rhabdomyosarcoma group and 23% for the Wilms tumour group — meaning these were the estimated percentage probabilities of a participant's disease not having worsened by that point. Across both groups combined, 14 out of 20 participants were reported to have experienced at least one serious side effect (graded 3 or higher on a standard medical scale, meaning significant or severe). Blood levels of the drug were also measured at several time points, with figures rising from zero before treatment to between roughly 4 and 7 micrograms per millilitre during treatment. Data for the genetic marker outcomes (BRAF mutation and RET/PTC rearrangement) 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.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01298323 · results posted 24 November 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 205 people in total — 102 in one group and 103 in the other. All participants took a 300 mg daily dose of vandetanib, but one group also took part in a patient outreach program (a structured support and monitoring program). The trial was measuring how often participants experienced side effects of a certain level of seriousness (graded 2 or above on a standard medical scale, meaning noticeable or significant rather than mild) during the first 12 months of treatment. The reported data shows that the main outcome measured was the percentage of days on which a participant experienced at least one of these more significant side effects. For the group who received vandetanib along with the outreach program, the reported figure was around 51.65% of their days on treatment. For the group who received vandetanib alone (without the outreach program), the reported figure was around 45.19% of their days on treatment. No other outcome measures appear to have been submitted with numerical results in the available data, so further detail on secondary outcomes was not reported. It is worth noting that these numbers describe how frequently side effects of that grade were recorded — they do not on their own tell us whether the outreach program changed how participants fared overall. The reported data simply captures what was measured and counted 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 ↗
NCT00704730 · results posted 9 September 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 330 people in total — 219 received the study drug cabozantinib (also called XL184), and 111 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was mainly measuring how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called "progression-free survival"), and also looked at overall survival, tumour shrinkage rates, and changes in certain proteins in the blood that can be associated with this type of cancer. The reported data shows that, for the main measure — time without the disease progressing — the cabozantinib group had a reported median (the midpoint value for the group) of 11.2 months, compared with 4.0 months in the placebo group. For overall survival (how long people lived after joining the trial), the cabozantinib group had a reported median of 21.1 months; a median figure for the placebo group was not reported in the data. When looking at tumour shrinkage, 28% of participants in the cabozantinib group had a measurable reduction in tumour size, compared with 0% in the placebo group. Among those who did show a response, the reported median duration of that response was 14.6 months (no equivalent figure was reported for the placebo group). For the blood protein markers measured (calcitonin and CEA), around 22–23% of the cabozantinib group showed a meaningful reduction, compared with under 1% 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 ↗
NCT00104871 · results posted 25 June 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 22 people, all of whom received a treatment called bortezomib. Twenty-one of the 22 participants completed the study, and one did not. The trial was measuring how tumours responded to the treatment, using a standardised system called RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), which categorises tumour changes into four groups: complete response (all target tumours disappear), partial response (tumours shrink by more than 30%), stable disease (tumours neither shrink enough to count as a response nor grow enough to count as progression), and progressive disease (tumours grow by at least 20% or new ones appear). The reported data shows that, out of 22 participants, zero had a complete response and zero had a partial response to the treatment. Eleven participants were recorded as having stable disease, meaning their tumours did not change significantly in either direction, and nine participants had progressive disease, meaning their tumours grew or new lesions appeared. This means the reported overall objective tumour response rate — the proportion of people whose tumours shrank meaningfully — was zero out of 22 participants. The reported data also shows one secondary (additional) outcome was measured: progression-free survival, which refers to how many participants did not experience their disease getting worse. According to the results submitted, four participants were recorded under this measure, though the specific timeframe or further detail for this figure was 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.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00984282 · results posted 10 December 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 417 participants, split into two groups: 207 people who received the drug sorafenib (also known as Nexavar) first, and 210 who received a placebo (a dummy treatment) first. Both groups had the option to move to open-label sorafenib treatment afterwards. The trial was primarily measuring how long it took for the disease to get worse — called "progression-free survival" — and also tracked a number of secondary outcomes including overall survival, how long before the disease progressed, how many people's disease was controlled or responded to treatment, and how long any response lasted. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome, the median time before the disease worsened or death occurred was 329 days in the sorafenib group, compared with 175 days in the placebo group. For overall survival, because many participants were still alive at the time of analysis, a median figure could not be calculated; instead, the reported data shows that 52.7% of participants in the sorafenib group and 54.8% in the placebo group had died by the time of analysis. The time-to-progression figures were similar to the primary outcome: 337 days for sorafenib versus 175 days for placebo. For disease control — meaning the disease disappeared, shrank, or stayed stable — 86.2% of the sorafenib group and 74.6% of the placebo group met that measure. A tumour response (meaning the disease visibly shrank or disappeared) was reported in 12.24% of the sorafenib group and 0.5% of the placebo group. Among those in the sorafenib group who did respond, the reported median duration of that response was 309 days; a corresponding figure for the placebo group was not reported in the 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 ↗
NCT00389441 · results posted 25 November 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 52 people, all of whom received a drug called axitinib. The trial was studying axitinib as a treatment for a form of cancer, and it measured how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, how long it took for the disease to worsen, how long responses lasted, how long participants lived, and how participants rated their symptoms over time. The reported data shows that none of the 52 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study — all 52 were listed under "not completed," though this does not necessarily mean the trial itself was unsuccessful; it may reflect how completion was defined for this particular study. The reported data shows that approximately 34.6% of participants had their tumour shrink or disappear to a degree that met the trial's predefined criteria for a meaningful response (called an "objective response"). On average, it was reported that participants went around 70 weeks before their disease progressed or they died — this measure is called progression-free survival. For those whose tumours did respond, the response lasted on average around 75 weeks. The reported overall survival — meaning the average time from starting treatment until death from any cause — was approximately 118 weeks (a little over two years). The trial also asked participants to rate their symptoms using a standard questionnaire scored from 0 to 10, where lower numbers indicate fewer or less bothersome symptoms. The reported data shows that at the start of the study, average symptom severity was scored at 1.66 and symptom interference with daily life was scored at 2.24; the changes from those starting scores at various later time points were generally small, ranging from a slight improvement to a modest increase, though the specific time points for each measurement were not detailed 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 ↗
NCT01057589 · results posted 19 March 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 66 adults who were given a combination of three medicines — pemetrexed, cisplatin, and cetuximab — for a type of head and neck cancer. The trial was measuring how long participants went without their cancer getting worse (called progression-free survival), how long they lived overall, how many showed tumour shrinkage, and how their quality of life and ability to eat and speak changed over time. The reported data shows that none of the 66 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study, meaning all 66 left the trial before its scheduled end — though the data does not explain the reasons for this in detail. The reported data shows that, on average, participants went approximately 4.4 months before their cancer progressed or they passed away — this was the primary thing the trial was tracking. For overall survival, the average time from the first dose to death from any cause was reported as approximately 9.7 months. Around 29.3% of participants were reported to have had their tumours shrink meaningfully (either partially or completely) according to standard measurement criteria. Regarding self-rated health (measured on a 0–100 scale where 100 is the best imaginable health), participants reported small changes from their starting scores — a small decline of 1.2 points at the end of the main treatment phase and a larger decline of 10.6 points by the end of the maintenance phase. Changes in a separate health utility score and in measures of speech and eating ability were also reported across multiple time points, with values showing small fluctuations — some slightly positive and some slightly negative — over the course 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00251316 · results posted 27 December 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 34 people in total — 17 in each group. One group received lithium carbonate and the other received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was looking at a treatment used after thyroid cancer surgery, where radioactive iodine is given to destroy any remaining thyroid tissue — a process called thyroid ablation. Specifically, the trial was measuring how many participants showed a "successful ablation" at one year, which was checked using a specialised whole-body scan after a hormone injection. The reported data shows that out of the 17 people who started in the lithium carbonate group, 15 completed the trial, and 10 of those were recorded as having a successful ablation result at one year. In the placebo group, 14 out of 17 completed the trial, and 10 were also recorded as having a successful result. 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 ↗
NCT00358956 · results posted 31 August 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 19 people, all of whom received a daily 100 mg dose of a medicine called ZD6474 (also known as ZACTIMA™). Eleven participants completed the study, while eight did not finish. The trial was set up to measure how the medicine affected a type of thyroid cancer, tracking things like whether tumours shrank, how long it took for the disease to progress, and changes in certain body markers. The reported data shows that 3 out of 19 participants had their tumours shrink enough to count as a measurable response (what researchers call an "objective response" — meaning the tumour either disappeared completely or reduced in size by a meaningful amount). Thirteen out of 19 participants were recorded as having their disease under some level of control at the 8-week mark, meaning their cancer had not grown significantly. The median time before the disease progressed or participants passed away was reported as 16.2 months — that is, half of participants reached that point before 16.2 months and half after. Separately, 3 out of 19 participants showed a measurable drop in a blood marker called calcitonin, which is linked to this type of cancer. The reported data also shows that none of the 19 participants showed an improvement in their general physical wellbeing score (a standard 0–5 scale where lower numbers mean better health) at the 24-week point, and none met the specific definition of a symptomatic response based on changes in stool frequency. 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 ↗
NCT00923481 · results posted 29 August 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 37 people, and all 37 completed the study. Every participant received the study drug, fosamatinib disodium, which belongs to a class of medicines called multi-kinase inhibitors. The trial was measuring how tumours responded to the treatment, using a standard set of rules called RECIST that categorises tumour changes into four groups: tumours disappearing completely, tumours shrinking by at least 30%, tumours growing by at least 20%, or tumours staying roughly the same size. The reported data shows that none of the 37 participants had their tumours disappear completely, and none had tumours shrink by 30% or more. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 26 participants were recorded as having stable disease — meaning their tumours neither shrank enough to count as a meaningful reduction nor grew enough to count as clear progression. The remaining 11 participants were recorded as having progressive disease, meaning their tumours grew by at least 20% during the study period. The reported data also shows that all 37 participants experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted or unexpected health change noticed during the trial). The trial's records do not break down the types or severity of those adverse events in this summary — further detail was noted as being available in a separate section of the trial record, but those specifics were not included 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 ↗
NCT00126568 · results posted 10 August 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 20 people, all of whom received a treatment called BAY 43-9006 (also known as sorafenib tosylate). Eighteen of the 20 participants completed the study, while two did not. The trial was measuring how participants' tumours responded to the treatment, using a standard set of measurement rules called RECIST criteria, which categorise a patient's best response as complete response (tumour disappears entirely), partial response (tumour shrinks significantly), stable disease (tumour neither shrinks nor grows much), or progressive disease (tumour grows). The study also tracked how long participants went without their disease getting worse, and how long they survived overall. The reported data shows that, out of the 20 participants, 2 had a complete or partial response (meaning their tumours shrank), 5 had stable disease (meaning their tumours did not change significantly), and 11 had progressive disease (meaning their tumours grew). The reported data shows that the average time before disease progression was 1.9 months, and the average overall survival time — measured from the start of treatment to the date of death — was 3.9 months. It is worth noting that these figures represent averages across the group and do not describe what happened to any single individual. The reported data also shows that all 20 participants experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted or unexpected medical occurrence) during the study, though the detailed breakdown of the types or severity of those events was not included in the structured 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 ↗
NCT00488644 · results posted 17 July 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00488644) involved 12 people who were given a combination of two thyroid-related medications: levothyroxine and liothyronine. The trial was measuring whether participants showed improvement in what researchers called "neuro-cognitive function" — that is, how well the brain performs tasks like memory, attention, processing speed, and hand–eye coordination. Each participant completed a series of brain-function tests at the start of the trial and again after 8 weeks on liothyronine therapy, with their own starting scores used as the comparison point. Of the 12 who started, 10 completed the trial and 2 did not finish. The reported data shows the number of participants who showed improvement across five different brain-function test categories after 8 weeks. The results, as reported, were: 0 participants showed improvement in memory (as measured by a word-recall test), 0 showed improvement in attention (repeating sequences of numbers), 1 showed improvement in processing speed (matching numbers to symbols), 3 showed improvement in executive function (tasks involving word association and trail-mapping), and 1 showed improvement in motor dexterity (placing pegs in a pegboard). No comparison scores or group averages were reported in the submitted data — only these individual counts of who improved. It is worth noting that the reported data does not include results for all 10 participants who completed the trial across every category, and some detail on how individual scores changed was not provided in the structured results submission. Any figures not included in the submitted data have not been described here, as they 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 ↗
NCT00094055 · results posted 30 March 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 60 participants, all of whom received a drug called axitinib. The trial was designed to look at how people with a specific type of cancer responded to this treatment. It is noted that none of the 60 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the formal sense — all 60 were listed under "not completed," which may reflect how the study's endpoint or follow-up was structured rather than participants dropping out early. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was the percentage of participants whose tumours shrank or disappeared by a defined amount — what researchers call an "objective response." According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 38.3% of participants met this criteria. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that the average time before the disease progressed or a participant died (called progression-free survival) was 459 days. Among those whose tumours did respond, the response lasted an average of 625 days. The reported overall survival — meaning the average time from starting treatment until death from any cause — was 1,068 days. Two additional measurements relating to drug levels in the blood and certain proteins in the blood were planned but no numerical results were 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 ↗
NCT00410761 · results posted 26 March 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 331 people in total — 231 were assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg, and 100 were assigned to receive a placebo (a dummy tablet with no active ingredient). The trial was studying a type of thyroid cancer called medullary thyroid cancer, and it was measuring things like how long people went without their disease getting worse, how many people's tumours shrank or disappeared, and how long people survived overall. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured — called "progression-free survival," meaning the estimated time before the disease got worse or a person died — was estimated at around 30.5 months for the vandetanib group and 19.2 months for the placebo group. These figures were estimates produced by a statistical model because the actual midpoint figures were not reached during the study. For the secondary measures: 104 people in the vandetanib group and 13 in the placebo group were reported as having their tumour shrink or disappear (known as an "objective response"). Disease control at 8 weeks — meaning the disease had not grown significantly — was reported in 200 people in the vandetanib group and 71 in the placebo group. Among those whose tumours did respond, the estimated time that response lasted was reported as 22.2 months (vandetanib) versus 16.3 months (placebo), again using a statistical estimate. Overall survival — the time from the start of the trial until death — was reported as 81.6 months for the vandetanib group and 80.4 months for the placebo group. A blood marker called calcitonin, which can be used to track this type of thyroid cancer, showed a meaningful reduction in 160 people in the vandetanib group compared with 3 people 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 ↗

See the full Thyroid Cancer page · What changed recently

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