Comparing Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening

August 16, 2021 updated by: Susan Rawl, Indiana University

Comparing Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Low-Income and Minority Patients

The purpose of this study is to test different approaches to help people understand the purpose of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, two screening test options available, and the barriers to screening so they can make informed decisions about CRC screening. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) one group will receive a tailored digital video disc (DVD) in the mail; (2) another group will receive the mailed DVD plus telephone calls from a patient navigator; and (3) the third group will receive the care normally provided by the healthcare system's endoscopy department.

The investigators hypothesize the following: (1) participants who receive the tailored DVD plus the patient navigation intervention will have higher rates of CRC screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy, or either screening test compared to those who receive the tailored DVD alone; (2) participants who receive either intervention (DVD only or DVD plus patient navigation) will have higher rates of CRC screening with FIT, colonoscopy, or either screening test than those who receive usual care; and (3) participants who receive either intervention who complete colonoscopy will have better quality of bowel preparation, less anxiety about the procedure, and greater satisfaction with the colonoscopy experience than those who receive usual care.

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) often can be prevented through regular screening and although multiple screening tests are available, colonoscopy is often the only screening test offered to patients. Unfortunately, up to half of people in some hospitals who receive a recommendation and are scheduled for colonoscopy do not complete the test. Reasons for not completing colonoscopy include lack of awareness of the need for, and benefits of, screening, fear of pain, fear of finding cancer, unpleasantness of the bowel preparation, cost, transportation issues, and the unwillingness to undergo an invasive test in the absence of symptoms. The process of bowel cleansing is one of the most challenging aspects of having a colonoscopy. Interventions that improve patients' knowledge about CRC screening, including test options other than colonoscopy, enhance access, improve skills needed to complete CRC screening, and reduce barriers will lead to greater numbers of people being screened. Patient navigation and computer tailored interventions have been shown to be effective approaches to increase CRC and other cancer screening but there is no evidence of their comparative effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to compare two health system-based interventions, with one another and with usual care, to increase completion rates among a diverse sample of patients. The investigators will enroll an ethnically diverse group of 450 men and women aged 50-75,or aged 45-75 if African American, who are at average risk for CRC and were referred and scheduled for colonoscopy at one endoscopy department but canceled or did not attend their scheduled appointment. Participants will be randomized to receive: (1) a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone; 2) the mailed tailored DVD plus a telephone-based Patient Navigator; or 3) usual care. Data will be collected at baseline, at 6 months and at 9 months post-baseline. Interviews to assess receipt, viewing, and satisfaction with the tailored DVD will be conducted 2 weeks after mailing. Satisfaction with the patient navigator will be assessed at 6 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses will be used to test the interventions' effects on CRC screening test completion and, for those who complete colonoscopy, quality of bowel preparation. The investigators will also examine whether these interventions change knowledge about CRC and screening as well as health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, barriers, and self-efficacy) about screening. From this study, the investigators will learn how effective these two standardized, easy to disseminate health system-based interventions are compared to each other and to usual care. If the interventions are found to be equally effective, or differentially effective for different subgroups of patients, healthcare systems may consider implementing one or both of these interventions in their settings.

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.
371

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
    • Indiana
      • Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, 46202
        • Eskenazi Health
      • Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, 46202
        • Indiana University School of Nursing

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

45 years to 75 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Referred for a screening colonoscopy that was not done (i.e, canceled or no show)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Unable to speak, read, and write English
  • Personal history of CRC or polyps
  • Personal history of conditions that place participants at high risk for CRC such as ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, or known hereditary syndromes such as familial adenomatous polyposis or hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer
  • Family history of CRC which increases the participant's risk for CRC
  • Advised by a health care provider to not have a colonoscopy due to the participant's health
  • Speech impairment
  • Hearing impairment
  • Cognitive impairment
  • Vision impairment

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: Screening
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

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.
Active Comparator: Tailored DVD
Tailored digital video disc (DVD)
Behavioral: Tailored DVD
A 20 minute tailored DVD titled "Approaches to Colon Testing" is viewed by participants. It is designed to encourage CRC screening uptake by colonoscopy or FIT by increasing the participant's CRC knowledge and beliefs about the benefits of screening, reducing barriers to screening, and increasing self-efficacy for screening by demonstrating how these tests are performed.
Active Comparator: Tailored DVD + Patient Navigation
Tailored digital video disc (DVD) plus Patient Navigation by a population health nurse in the healthcare system
Behavioral: Tailored DVD
A 20 minute tailored DVD titled "Approaches to Colon Testing" is viewed by participants. It is designed to encourage CRC screening uptake by colonoscopy or FIT by increasing the participant's CRC knowledge and beliefs about the benefits of screening, reducing barriers to screening, and increasing self-efficacy for screening by demonstrating how these tests are performed.
Behavioral: Patient Navigation
Participants talk by telephone with a Patient Navigator who is a trained nurse. The Patient Navigator determines if participants viewed the tailored DVD and answers any questions about the content. The Patient Navigator then provides telephone counseling on CRC and screening tests to: (1) increase knowledge, perceived benefits, and self-efficacy; (2) reduce barriers; (3) enhance access; and (4) provide social support.
No Intervention: Usual Care
Care normally provided by a nurse in the endoscopy department of the healthcare system

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
Participants Completing CRC Screening Per Electronic Medical Record Documentation
Time Frame: 12 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants completing CRC screening by any test (defined as colonoscopy or FIT) is measured by electronic medical record review. Dates that participants had a colonoscopy and dates of FIT analysis are extracted from the electronic medical record.
12 months post-baseline interview

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
Participants Completing Colonoscopy Per Electronic Medical Record Documentation
Time Frame: 12 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants completing a colonoscopy is measured by electronic medical record review (EMR). Dates that participants completed a colonoscopy are extracted from the EMR.
12 months post-baseline interview
Bowel Preparation Quality Rating Using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale
Time Frame: 12 months post-baseline interview
Participants quality of bowel preparation is measured by the endoscopist during their colonoscopy procedure using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). BBPS scores the total quality on a 10 point scale from 0-9. Higher scores indicate better quality of bowel preparation.
12 months post-baseline interview
Participants With Adequate Quality of Bowel Preparation Per Modified Aronchick Rating Scale
Time Frame: 12 months post-baseline interview
Participants quality of bowel preparation is measured by the endoscopist during their colonoscopy using a modification of the Aronchick rating scale. The Aronchick scale rates quality as 1=excellent, 2=good, 3=fair, or 4=poor. Some endoscopists choose to grade quality more generally as adequate vs. inadequate. To accommodate this variation, bowel preparation ratings have been dichotomized into adequate (excellent, good, fair, or adequate ratings) vs. inadequate (poor or inadequate ratings). Adequate is scored as 1 and indicates better quality of bowel preparation than inadequate which is scored as 0.
12 months post-baseline interview
Colonoscopy-Related Procedural Anxiety for Participants Completing a Colonoscopy
Time Frame: 12 months post-baseline interview
Colonoscopy-related procedural anxiety is measured by self-report using the 6-item short form of the State Anxiety Scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=not at all; 4=very much so) with higher scores indicating greater anxiety.
12 months post-baseline interview
Satisfaction With Colonoscopy Experience
Time Frame: 12 months post-baseline interview
Satisfaction with the colonoscopy experience is measured by self-report using a single item developed by the research team. Satisfaction is rated from 1 to 4 where 1=not at all satisfied, 2=a little satisfied, 3=mostly satisfied, and 4=completely satisfied. Scores range from 1 to 4 with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
12 months post-baseline interview
Participants Completing a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Per Electronic Medical Record Documentation
Time Frame: 12 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants completing a FIT is measured by electronic medical record review (EMR). Dates of FIT analysis are extracted from the EMR.
12 months post-baseline interview
Participants Who Self-Reported Completing CRC Screening
Time Frame: 6-9 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants who reported completing CRC screening by any test (defined as colonoscopy or FIT) during the 6 or 9 month post-baseline telephone interview.
6-9 months post-baseline interview
Participants Who Self-Reported Completing a Colonoscopy
Time Frame: 6-9 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants who reported completing a colonoscopy during the 6 or 9 month post-baseline telephone interview.
6-9 months post-baseline interview
Participants Who Self-Reported Completing a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)
Time Frame: 6-9 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants who reported completing a FIT during the 6 or 9 month post-baseline telephone interview.
6-9 months post-baseline interview
Change in Knowledge of CRC and Screening
Time Frame: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in knowledge of CRC and screening is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 9-item multidimensional scale. Each item is scored as 1=correct or 0=incorrect and summed to yield a scale score. Scores range from 0 to 9 with higher summated scores indicating greater knowledge of CRC and screening tests. The mean of the 9 items is calculated at baseline and 6 months post-baseline. Change from baseline equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -9 to 9 with positive values indicating an increase in knowledge.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Risk for CRC
Time Frame: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived risk for CRC is measured by self-report at 6 months using a 3-item scale. We ask participants how likely it is that they will get colon cancer sometime during their lifetime, within the next 10 years, and within the next 5 years. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=very unlikely; 4=very likely). Higher scores indicate a higher perceived risk for getting CRC. The mean of the 3 items is calculated at baseline and 6 months. Change in perceived risk equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived risk for getting CRC.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Colonoscopy-Related Procedural Anxiety Regardless of Whether or Not Participants Had a Colonoscopy
Time Frame: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in colonoscopy-related procedural anxiety is measured at 6 months by self-report using the 6-item short form of the State Anxiety Scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=not at all; 4=very much so) with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. The mean of the 6 items is calculated at baseline and 6 months post-baseline. Change from baseline is the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in anxiety.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Benefits of CRC Screening by Colonoscopy
Time Frame: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived benefits of CRC screening by colonoscopy is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 4-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree) and the mean of the 4 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived benefits of screening by colonoscopy. Change in perceived benefits equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived benefits of screening by colonoscopy.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Barriers to CRC Screening by Colonoscopy
Time Frame: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived barriers to CRC screening by colonoscopy is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 16-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree) and the mean of the 16 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived barriers to screening by colonoscopy. Change in perceived barriers equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with negative values indicating a decrease in perceived barriers to screening by colonoscopy.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Self-Efficacy for CRC Screening by Colonoscopy
Time Frame: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived self-efficacy for colonoscopy is measured at 6 months by self-report using an 11-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=not at all sure; 4=very sure) and the mean of the 11 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived self-efficacy for screening by colonoscopy. Change in perceived self-efficacy equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived self-efficacy for screening by colonoscopy.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Benefits of CRC Screening by FIT
Time Frame: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived benefits of CRC screening by FIT is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 3-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree) and the mean of the 3 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived benefits of screening by FIT. Change in perceived benefits equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived benefits for screening by FIT.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Barriers to CRC Screening by FIT
Time Frame: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived barriers to CRC screening by FIT is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 10-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree) and the mean of the 10 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived barriers to screening by FIT. Change in perceived barriers equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with negative values indicating a decrease in perceived barriers to screening by FIT.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Self-Efficacy for CRC Screening by FIT
Time Frame: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived self-efficacy for CRC screening by FIT is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 7-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=not at all sure; 4=very sure) and the mean of the 7 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived self-efficacy for screening by FIT. Change in perceived self-efficacy equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived self-efficacy for screening by FIT.
6 months post-baseline interview

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.
Indiana University

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.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Ohio State 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: Susan M Rawl, PhD,RN, Indiana University

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 (Actual)

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.
July 26, 2017

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.
October 21, 2020

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.
October 21, 2020

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).
June 22, 2017

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.
June 23, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

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.
June 27, 2017

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.
September 13, 2021

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.
August 16, 2021

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.
August 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

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.
  • 1605880142
  • IHS-1507-31333 (Other Grant/Funding Number: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI))

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

A copy of the complete, cleaned, de-identified data set used to conduct the final analyses will be made available in SAS and SPSS formats.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

Available by September 30, 2021

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

Request in writing to the the study's Principal Investigator, Dr. Susan Rawl

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP

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.

Clinical Trials on Colorectal Cancer

  • NCT04597151
    Completed
    Diet Education Program for Stage I-IV Colorectal Cancer Survivors
    Stage IV Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage III Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage I Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage II Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8
  • NCT03781778
    Terminated
    Pilot Trial of Resistant Starch in Stage I-III Colorectal Cancer Survivors
    Rectal Cancer | Colon Cancer | Cancer Survivor | Colorectal Adenocarcinoma | Stage III Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage I Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage II Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8
  • NCT04832763
    Active, not recruiting
    Medical and Psychosocial Issues in Adolescents and Young Adults With Colorectal Cancer
    Stage IV Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage III Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage I Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage II Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8
  • NCT04739072
    Recruiting
    Minimal Residual Disease Assessment in Patients With Colorectal Cancer, the MiRDA-C Study
    Colorectal Adenocarcinoma | Stage IVA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage III Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage I Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage II Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8
  • NCT03796884
    Active, not recruiting
    Linaclotide in Treating Patients With Stages 0-3 Colorectal Cancer
    Colorectal Adenoma | Stage III Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage 0 Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage I Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage II Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8
  • NCT03844620
    Active, not recruiting
    Circulating Cell-Free Tumor DNA Testing in Guiding Treatment for Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
    Stage IV Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IVC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage III Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Refractory Colorectal Carcinoma
  • NCT03520283
    Completed
    Systems Support Mapping in Guiding Self-Management in Stage I-III Colorectal Cancer Survivors
    Cancer Survivor | Stage III Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIIC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage I Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage II Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8 | Stage IIC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v8
  • NCT03800602
    Completed
    Nivolumab and Metformin in Patients With Treatment Refractory MSS Colorectal Cancer
    Colorectal Cancer Metastatic | Colorectal Adenocarcinoma | Stage IV Colorectal Cancer | Stage IVA Colorectal Cancer | Stage IVB Colorectal Cancer | Refractory Colorectal Carcinoma | Metastatic Microsatellite Stable Colorectal Carcinoma | Stage IVC Colorectal Cancer
  • NCT01570452
    Completed
    Matrilysin Expression in Different Stages of Colorectal Tumors (MMP7)
    Colorectal Cancer Stage II | Colorectal Cancer Stage III | Colorectal Cancer Stage IV | Colorectal Cancer Stage 0 | Colorectal Cancer Stage I
  • NCT03300609
    Terminated
    5-FU Based Maintenance Therapy in RAS Wild Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After Induction With FOLFOX Plus Panitumumab
    Stage IV Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7 | Stage IVA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7 | Stage IVB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7 | Colorectal Adenocarcinoma | RAS Wild Type | Stage III Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7 | Stage IIIA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7 | Stage IIIB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7 | Stage IIIC Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7

Clinical Trials on Tailored DVD

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

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