Understanding Patient Experience and Preferences for the QT Scanner Compared to Mammography
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Enrollment
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Massachusetts
-
Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02199
- Analysis Group, Inc.
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Child
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Sampling Method
Study Population
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Have used the QT Scanner
- Have used mammography
- Speak English
- Willing to provide consent and participate in the survey
Exclusion Criteria:
• Excluded if all Inclusion Criteria are not met
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Observational Models: Case-Only
- Time Perspectives: Retrospective
Number of groups / cohorts
Cohorts and Interventions
Group / CohortGroup / Cohort |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
QT Scanner in comparison to mammography
Women who have experience with both technologies (QT Scanner/Breast mammography
|
Diagnostic test that is repeatable, non-invasive imaging tool for the early and accurate detection of breast cancer, breast abnormalities, and musculoskeletal findings.
Comparing with mammography, the QT Scanner uses harmless soundwaves to screen and diagnose the breast.
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Qualitative phase: structured one-on-one interviews
Time Frame: 30 days
|
one-on-one interviews will be conducted by trained professionals with about 20 women
|
30 days
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, Rothman M; PRO Harmonization Group. Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003 Sep-Oct;6(5):522-31. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65309.x.
- Blumen H, Fitch K, Polkus V. Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016 Feb;9(1):23-32.
- Johnson FR, Zhou M. Patient Preferences in Regulatory Benefit-Risk Assessments: A US Perspective. Value Health. 2016 Sep-Oct;19(6):741-745. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.008.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- QT MG PRE Phase 1
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
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.