A Trial of a Comprehensive Breast Cancer Treatment Patient Decision Tool

October 9, 2018 updated by: Sarah T. Hawley, University of Michigan

Individualizing Decision Quality for Patients With Breast Cancer: A RCT of a Comprehensive Breast Cancer Treatment Patient Decision Tool

This study examines the impact of an online decision tool for patients with early stage invasive breast cancer. The study is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 444 newly diagnosed patients, recruited from multiple surgical practices in two SEER catchment areas. Participants will be randomized to receive either a basic version of a decision tool (similar to existing website with breast cancer information) or an enhanced version (featuring a knowledge building component, a values clarification exercise, and a patient activation module). Our hypothesis is that patients who use the enhanced version of the tool will have greater knowledge of their test and treatment options, have a higher rate of high quality (i.e., informed, preference-concordant) decisions, and report more positive appraisal of the decision-making process.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer face a series of complex decisions regarding locoregional and systemic treatment. Currently many of these decisions do not meet the definition of a high quality decision, defined as one that is both informed (i.e., based on an accurate understanding of the treatment risks and benefits) and preference-concordant (i.e., consistent with the patients' underlying preferences). Moreover, the introduction of evaluative tests has made these decisions more complicated for many patients. There is a need to improve the quality of locoregional and systemic treatment decisions for breast cancer patients, and to help patients understand the role of evaluative tests in this decision process. Ensuring patients can deliberate effectively about these decisions, assert their views and communicate with their clinicians is likely to improve their overall decision preparedness and satisfaction. This study will focus on the third pillar of individualized care by evaluating the impact of an innovative decision tool on locoregional and systemic therapy decision making for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The innovative online decision tool has been developed and tested over the past two years by the CanSORT team (R21 CA129859). Pilot data suggests that this tool has a positive impact on patient knowledge and decision outcomes. The goal of this study is to evaluate the impact of this tool, after it is enhanced in collaboration with our Communication and Dissemination Core, on the quality of decision making for locoregional and systemic breast cancer treatment decision making.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
537

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Michigan
      • Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109
        • University of Michigan Medical School

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

21 years to 84 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

Female

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Stage 1-2 invasive breast cancer diagnosis,
  • DCIS
  • Ability to read English

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Male

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Other: CanSORT Online Tool
Comprehensive decision tool
Other: CanSORT Online Tool
Other: Static version of CanSORT tool
Static version (non-interactive) version of CanSORT decision tool
Other: Static version of CanSORT tool

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of Patients With Accurate Knowledge About Risks and Benefits of Treatment Options for Locoregional Breast Cancer.
Time Frame: 4-5 weeks from date of enrollment
Self reported knowledge about locoregional treatment using a 5 item Breast Cancer Knowledge Measure (adapted). A binary knowledge indicator was created for all patients whereby high knowledge indicated for patients scoring greater than 80% on the item scale. The binary knowledge variable was analyzed for intervention effect using both unadjusted and adjusted logistic mixed model regression.
4-5 weeks from date of enrollment
Number of Patients Choosing a Treatment Option for Locoregional Treatment That Was Values Concordant
Time Frame: 4-5 weeks from date of enrollment
Self reported values were evaluated using a 5 item question set adapted from Decision Quality Instrument. The questions determined patient desire for outcomes such as keeping their natural breast and avoiding radiation on a scale from 0 to 10. Patients were classified as values-concordant if their actual treatment aligned with their values score predicted treatment and otherwise were classified as non-concordant. The binary values-concordance variable was modeled as a function of intervention effect using both unadjusted and adjusted logistic mixed model regression.
4-5 weeks from date of enrollment

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Patient Preparedness Decision Making for Locoregional Treatment.
Time Frame: 4-5 weeks from date of enrollment
A 12 item decision preparedness scale asked whether the web intervention helped patients prepare for their treatment decision. Each item asked about a diefferent aspect of decision preparation, with responses of 'not at all'/'a little'/'somewhat'/'quite a bit'/'a great deal'. Each response was assigned a value of 1('not at all') to 5('a great deal'), with a high value representing a greater amount of preparedness. The values of all 12 items were combined using the arithmetic mean, to create a standardized scale ranging from 1(not at all) to 5 (a great deal). The decision making scale was modeled by linear mixed model to determine the effect intervention on patient preparation for decision making.
4-5 weeks from date of enrollment
Patient Deliberation for Locoregional Breast Cancer Treatment.
Time Frame: 4-5 weeks from date of enrollment
A 4 item Breast Cancer Treatment Deliberation Scale asked how deliberative patients were in making their treatment decision. The items asked how often they performed deliberative activities with answers of 'not at all'/'a little'/'somewhat'/'quite a bit'/'a lot'. Each response was assigned a value of 1('not at all') to 5('a lot), with a high value representing a greater amount of deliberation. The values of all 4 items were combined using the arithmetic mean, to create a standardized scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). The deliberation scale was then modeled using linear mixed models to determine the effect of the intervention on patient deliberation.
4-5 weeks from date of enrollment
Patient Subjective Decision Quality for Locoregional Breast Cancer Treatment
Time Frame: 4-5 weeks from date of enrollment
A 5 item subjective decision quality scale measured how satisfied patients were with their treatment decision. Patients were asked how well they agreed with 5 statements, with responses of 'not at all'/'a little bit'/'somewhat'/'quite a bit'/'very much'. All responses were assigned values from 1 to 5, with higher values reflecting greater decision satisfaction. Two of the statements reflected satisfaction with the decision and were coded as 1 for 'not at all' through 5 for 'very much'. The other three statements reflected dissatisfaction with the decision and were coded as 5 for 'not at all' through 1 for 'very much' The values of all 5 items were combined using the arithmetic mean, to create a standardized scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The subjective decision quality scale was modeled by linear mixed model to determine the effect of intervention on patient response.
4-5 weeks from date of enrollment
Number of Patients With Accurate Knowledge About Risks and Benefits of Systemic Treatment Options for Breast Cancer
Time Frame: 9 months after enrollment
Self-reported knowledge about systemic treatment using a 5 item Breast Cancer Knowledge Measure (adapted) consisting of 5 questions to test patients' knowledge about systemic treatment options for breast cancer. We compared the number of patients who gave correct answers to at least 80% of the questions between two groups. We used both unadjusted and adjusted generalized linear mixed models with logit as the link function.
9 months after enrollment
Patient Preparedness Decision Making for Systemic Treatment
Time Frame: 9 months after enrollment
A 10-item decision preparedness scale asked whether the web intervention helped patients prepare for their treatment decision. Each item asked about a different aspect of decision preparation, with responses of 'not at all'/'a little'/'somewhat'/'quite a bit'/'a great deal'. Each response was assigned a value of 1('not at all') to 5('a great deal'), with a high value representing a greater amount of preparedness. The values of all 10 items were combined using the arithmetic mean, to create a standardized scale ranging from 1(not at all) to 5 (a great deal). The decision making scale was modeled by linear mixed model to determine the effect intervention on patient preparation for decision making.
9 months after enrollment
Patient Subjective Decision Quality for Systemic Breast Cancer Treatment
Time Frame: 9 months after enrollment
A 4 item subjective decision quality scale measured how satisfied patients were with their chemotherapy treatment decision. Patients were asked to rate the amounts of information, involvement, time, and overall satisfaction associated with their chemotherapy decisions. Possible responses ranged from 'not enough' to 'just right' to 'too much'. All responses were assigned values from 1 to 5, with a response of 'just right' coded as 5 points, and both 'not enough' and 'too much' coded as 1 point. The values of all 4 items were combined using the arithmetic mean, to create a standardized scale ranging from 1 (low decision quality) to 5 (high decision quality). The subjective decision quality scale was used as an outcome in linear mixed models to determine the effect of intervention on patient decision quality.
9 months after enrollment

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
University of Michigan

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Emory University

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Sarah T. Hawley, PhD, MPH, University of Michigan

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
February 1, 2014

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
August 1, 2016

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
September 1, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
April 16, 2013

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
April 22, 2013

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
April 25, 2013

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
November 8, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
October 9, 2018

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
October 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • P01CA163233 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings