This research is being done to study the safety of implanting and retrieving a microdevice that releases up to 19 drugs directly within a cancerous lesion as a possible tool to evaluate the effectiveness of several approved cancer drugs against cutaneous T cell lymphoma and peripheral T cell lymphoma
This research study is a Pilot and Feasibility Study, which is the first time investigators are examining this study microdevice loaded with drugs in patients with cutaneous lesions of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) or peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL) patients. The FDA (the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) has not approved the use of all the drugs contained in the microdevice as a treatment for cutaneous or peripheral T cell lymphoma. All drugs used in this study are FDA approved. Some drugs are for different cancer indications. Romidepsin, vorinostat, bexarotene, brentuximab vedotin, pralatrexate, and mogamulizumab have been FDA approved for CTCL. The FDA has not approved the use of the microdevice as a tool to identify what cancer treatment is best for any disease. In this research study, the investigators are investigating whether the microdevice loaded with 19 drugs can be safely inserted in and removed from cancerous skin lesion. The microdevice was developed as a tool with the ultimate goal to help screen several existing and investigational drugs directly within a patient's tumor to identify what drugs are the most effective for treating a patient's cancer. This microdevice was investigated in laboratory studies and shown to help identify what drugs could be effective in treating a specific cancer type. The microdevice was able to release drugs only to the immediately surrounding tumor tissue in concentrations of one millionth of what is normally needed for a therapeutic dose. The microdevice can be retrieved along with a few millimeters of surrounding treated tumor tissue for analysis of tumor response to drug.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
20
The microdevice was developed as a tool with the ultimate goal to help screen several existing and investigational drugs directly within a patient's tumor to identify what drugs are the most effective for treating a patient's cancer.
Participant to receive standard of care therapy as previously determined by participant's treating oncologist and/or dermatologist, which may include a skin-directed or systemic therapy
Participant to receive standard of care therapy as previously determined by participant's treating oncologist and/or dermatologist, which must include a systemic therapy.
Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
RECRUITINGTo Quantify The Number Of Microdevice-Related Failures Or Adverse Events As Assessed By CTCAE v4.0 After Microdevice Placement and Removal
"Failure" will be considered any of the following: 1. Any grade 3 or 4 adverse events associated with device placement or retrieval 2. Any device resulting in "major" adverse events as listed below: * device unable to be found or unable to be retrieved * device invading into vessel or device embolism * infection or severe tissue damage or abnormal wound healing associated with device or procedure (as deemed by a neutral consultant e.g. dermatologist, ID specialist or surgeon) * severe allergic/hypersensitivity reaction * severe bleeding 3. Any device resulting in \*two or more\* "minor" adverse events as listed below: * device migration more than 10 mm * device fracture not causing a major adverse event * mild allergic/hypersensitivity reaction * manageable pain associated with biopsy procedure * minor bleeding For purposes of this endpoint, safety will be evaluated on a per-patient level, where an event is defined as any "failure" observed among all implanted devices.
Time frame: 2 years
To Retrieve The Device With Sufficient Tissue Of Sufficient Quality
For the feasibility endpoint, a "successful" procedure will be defined as the ability to retrieve the device (by either skin punch biopsy tool or surgical excision) without damaging tumor tissue surrounding the microdevice to allow for immunohistochemistry analysis. For purposes of this endpoint, feasibility will be assessed on a per-device basis rather than a per-patient basis, with each device considered relatively independent in terms of placement, retrieval, and analysis.
Time frame: 2 years
Local Intralesional Response To Clinically Relevant Cancer Agents In Cutaneous T Cell Lymphomas
Time frame: 2 years
Intralesional Heterogeneity In Drug Response Using Quantitative Histopathologic Assessment Of Tumor Tissue
Comparison of tumor responses to like drug delivered from separate microdevices.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: 2 years
Assessment Of Microdevice-Predicted Tumor Response To Drug
Correlation of tumor response to drug released by microdevice compared with clinical response to systemic administration of like drug
Time frame: 3 years
Quantitative Assessment Of Drug Effect On The Tumor Microenvironment And Signal Pathways By Immunofluorescence
Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize the quantitative measurements in cell number of different immunophenotypes and quantify signal transduction cascades. Descriptive statistics will be employed to summarize the variance in different measures of drug-induced microenvironment changes across participants.
Time frame: 5 years
To Identify Genomic And Transcriptomic Biomarkers of Drug Response by Whole Exome and RNA Sequencing and Subsequent Correlations To Microdevice Predicted Tumor Response
Genetic alterations will be cataloged in terms of single nucleotide variants, insertions/deletions, and copy number changes and will be reported in a descriptive manner. Preliminary correlations between a specific genetic feature and specific clinical features will be tested using Fisher's exact test for categorical variables or the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test for continuous variables. Analyses of correlations between genetic and clinical features in different specimen types and patient groups are exploratory, and will rely on descriptive statistics without formal hypothesis testing. For each genetic feature of interest (e.g. mutation, gene expression profile) we will divide patient samples into groups based on the presence or absence of the feature. We will then assess whether the presence of the feature is associated with clinical outcomes using odds ratios, or correlation between genetic feature and overall survival, using Kaplan Meier estimates, with 95% confidence intervals to each.
Time frame: 5 years