Lung CancerPACT CREATE 3NCT01710293
Intervention Protocol for Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis
A study testing Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers in people with Lung Cancer and Bladder Cancer, run by VA Office of Research and Development at 5 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Many missed and delayed cancer diagnoses result from breakdowns in communication and coordination of abnormal findings suspicious for cancer, which often first emerge in the primary care setting. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Lung Cancer, Bladder Cancer, Colorectal Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 5 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 27 Jan 2017to 27 Jan 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 21 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patient charts: Medical charts of Veteran patients who receive care from participating VA facility (Madison VAH, Jesse Brown VAMC, Hines VAH, Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, and Minneapolis VAMC) providers during the one year study period (tentatively October 2016-October 2017) and who have potential delays in diagnostic evaluation for lung, colorectal, liver, bladder, or breast cancer will be reviewed as part of the study.
- Providers: Providers who have seen primary care outpatients in any of the participating facilities or their outpatient clinics within the year-long study period.
Who cannot join
- Patient Charts: Medical charts of patients who are not receiving care from participating facility providers or charts of patients who do not have potential follow-up delays for lung, colorectal, liver, bladder, or breast cancer in the time period of interest.
- Providers: Providers who have not seen primary care outpatients in any of the participating facilities or their outpatient clinics within the time period of interest.
Trial locations and contacts
5 sites in 1 country.
5 sites in 1 country
United States5 sites
Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, IL
Chicago, Illinois, 60612
Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, IL
Hines, Illinois, 60141-5000
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX
Houston, Texas, 77030
William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, WI
Madison, Wisconsin, 53705
Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55417
About this study
Official title: Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis
Many missed and delayed cancer diagnoses result from breakdowns in communication and coordination of abnormal findings suspicious for cancer, which often first emerge in the primary care setting. Delays in the follow-up of abnormal test results persist despite the reliable delivery of test results through the electronic health record.
This intervention is the final study in a three-phase project that will develop and test an innovative automated surveillance intervention to improve timely diagnosis and follow-up of five common cancers in primary care practice.
The investigators hypothesize that the median time in days from diagnostic clue to follow-up action (e.g. time to colonoscopy examination after am abnormal colon-related test) will be significantly less in the intervention arm than in usual care. The investigators also hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving appropriate and timely follow-up care will be significantly higher in the intervention arm than in usual care.
Read the detailed description
The CREATE Project encompasses three phases, the first and second of which do not contain interventions. The first phase of the project determines the effectiveness of computerized queries the investigators develop to accurately identify which patients are at risk for delays in cancer diagnosis. Patients the investigators identify will have abnormal test results or symptoms that have not been followed up by their providers. In Phase 2 of the study, the research team will use interviewing and other participatory techniques to determine the best way to convey information about such at-risk patients to providers in an automated fashion. In Phase 3 of the project, the investigators will evaluate the effects of an automated surveillance intervention on the timeliness of the diagnostic process of five cancers.
This project will improve communication and coordination of cancer-related diagnostic information to improve quality and safety.
- Being tested
- Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers
- Keywords
- Electronic Health Records, Diagnostic Delay, Triggers
- Medical subject headings
- Lung Neoplasms, Urinary Bladder Neoplasms, Colorectal Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Breast Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to ProvidersBehavioural
The investigators will query the VA's database weekly to identify possible lost to follow-up events for a random sample of about half of the providers at our study sites. The queries will use the trigger criteria developed in our previous work for colorectal cancer, lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, breast cancer, and bladder cancer. The list of trigger positive patients will be transmitted to a facility-level recipient who will either disseminate the information to existing facility individual cancer care coordinators/trackers or will review the charts of the "triggered" patients in order to determine whether these patients have been truly lost to follow-up or not. If patients are found to be lost to follow-up, the Facility Recipient or cancer care coordinator/tracker will communicate the need for follow-up to the PACT or primary care provider, using secure emails, phone calls, or in person, depending on which method of communication they deem most appropriate and effective.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers | Experimental | This intervention will consist of two related, continuous steps over at least a 12-month period. In the first step, the investigators will query the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW, a repository of near real-time patient data from all VA medical centers) weekly to identify possible lost to follow-up events in a pre-specified time period and for a random sample of about half of the providers at the investigators' study sites. These identified patient charts will be reviewed by Facility Recipients/Cancer Trackers at each site who will then communicate patients truly found to be lost to follow-up to the appropriate provider/care team. Receives: Behavioral: Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers |
| Usual Care | No intervention | In the usual care group, providers will continue to use the existing notification system to receive abnormal test results in accordance with institutional norms, policies, and procedures. There are no formal patient-tracking programs currently at our study sites for all abnormal test results. The investigators will apply our computerized surveillance tools in the usual care arm only when the investigators are ready to conduct the final chart reviews on intervention patients and identify these patients in similar time periods as in the intervention arm. If persistent delays are found, the investigators will inform the patients' primary care providers. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Median Time from Initial Follow-up Delay to Follow-up Action
The investigators will conduct chart reviews of patients shown by our automated surveillance system to have not received appropriate follow-up care in both intervention and control groups at least 6 months after the first documentation of a diagnostic clue (e.g., initial abnormal chest X-ray). Chart review will be used to quantify time in days from documentation of the clinical clue to the time when follow-up action on that clue was initiated.
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Oct 2012 (estimated)
- Study start27 Jan 2017
- Primary completion27 Jan 2017
- Study completion27 Jan 2017
Why it stopped: Unable to obtain data needed to run the RCT; project never began recruitment
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Lung CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by VA Office of Research and DevelopmentThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Care provider
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- VA Office of Research and Development
- Sponsor type
- US federal agency
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Hardeep Singh, MD MPH BS, Principal investigator, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01710293
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CRE 12-033
- Other IDs
- CIRB 15-07
- Acronym
- PACT CREATE 3
- Status last verified
- Feb 2018
- First submitted
- 16 Oct 2012
- Last updated
- 26 Feb 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Russo E, Sittig DF, Wei L, Singh H. The Burden of Inbox Notifications in Commercial Electronic Health Records. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):559-60. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0209. No abstract available.
PubMed 26974737Bhise V, Meyer AND, Singh H, Wei L, Russo E, Al-Mutairi A, Murphy DR. Errors in Diagnosis of Spinal Epidural Abscesses in the Era of Electronic Health Records. Am J Med. 2017 Aug;130(8):975-981. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.03.009. Epub 2017 Mar 31.
PubMed 28366427Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Vaghani V, Russo E, Sittig DF, Richards KA, Wei L, Wu L, Singh H. Application of Electronic Algorithms to Improve Diagnostic Evaluation for Bladder Cancer. Appl Clin Inform. 2017 Mar 22;8(1):279-290. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2016-10-RA-0176.
PubMed 28326433Meyer AND, Murphy DR, Al-Mutairi A, Sittig DF, Wei L, Russo E, Singh H. Electronic Detection of Delayed Test Result Follow-Up in Patients with Hypothyroidism. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Jul;32(7):753-759. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-3988-z. Epub 2017 Jan 30.
PubMed 28138875Menon S, Singh H, Giardina TD, Rayburn WL, Davis BP, Russo EM, Sittig DF. Safety huddles to proactively identify and address electronic health record safety. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):261-267. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw153.
PubMed 28031286Baldwin JL, Singh H, Sittig DF, Giardina TD. Patient portals and health apps: Pitfalls, promises, and what one might learn from the other. Healthc (Amst). 2017 Sep;5(3):81-85. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.08.004. Epub 2016 Oct 3.
PubMed 27720139Singh H, Graber ML, Hofer TP. Measures to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Clinical Practice. J Patient Saf. 2019 Dec;15(4):311-316. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000338.
PubMed 27768655Singh H. Improving Diagnostic Safety in Primary Care by Unlocking Digital Data. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017 Jan;43(1):29-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2016.10.007. Epub 2016 Oct 14. No abstract available.
PubMed 28334582Giardina TD, Sarkar U, Gourley G, Modi V, Meyer AN, Singh H. Online public reactions to frequency of diagnostic errors in US outpatient care. Diagnosis (Berl). 2016 Mar;3(1):17-22. doi: 10.1515/dx-2015-0022. Epub 2016 Feb 19.
PubMed 27347474Singh H, Schiff GD, Graber ML, Onakpoya I, Thompson MJ. The global burden of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):484-494. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005401. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
PubMed 27530239Sittig DF, Wright A, Ash J, Singh H. New Unintended Adverse Consequences of Electronic Health Records. Yearb Med Inform. 2016 Nov 10;(1):7-12. doi: 10.15265/IY-2016-023.
PubMed 27830226Pfoh ER, Engineer L, Singh H, Hall LL, Fried ED, Berger Z, Wu AW. Informing the Design of a New Pragmatic Registry to Stimulate Near Miss Reporting in Ambulatory Care. J Patient Saf. 2021 Apr 1;17(3):e121-e127. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000317.
PubMed 28248748
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Feb 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01710293
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PACT CREATE 3 / CRE 12-033
- Keywords
- Electronic Health Records, Diagnostic Delay, Triggers
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Unable to obtain data needed to run the RCT; project never began recruitment
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- VA Office of Research and DevelopmentUS federal agency
- Study start
- 27 Jan 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 27 Jan 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 27 Jan 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Oct 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Many missed and delayed cancer diagnoses result from breakdowns in communication and coordination of abnormal findings suspicious for cancer, which often first emerge in the primary care setting. Delays in the follow-up of abnormal test results persist despite the reliable delivery of test results through the electronic health record.
This intervention is the final study in a three-phase project that will develop and test an innovative automated surveillance intervention to improve timely diagnosis and follow-up of five common cancers in primary care practice.
The investigators hypothesize that the median time in days from diagnostic clue to follow-up action (e.g. time to colonoscopy examination after am abnormal colon-related test) will be significantly less in the intervention arm than in usual care. The investigators also hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving appropriate and timely follow-up care will be significantly higher in the intervention arm than in usual care.
Detailed description
The CREATE Project encompasses three phases, the first and second of which do not contain interventions. The first phase of the project determines the effectiveness of computerized queries the investigators develop to accurately identify which patients are at risk for delays in cancer diagnosis. Patients the investigators identify will have abnormal test results or symptoms that have not been followed up by their providers. In Phase 2 of the study, the research team will use interviewing and other participatory techniques to determine the best way to convey information about such at-risk patients to providers in an automated fashion. In Phase 3 of the project, the investigators will evaluate the effects of an automated surveillance intervention on the timeliness of the diagnostic process of five cancers.
This project will improve communication and coordination of cancer-related diagnostic information to improve quality and safety.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (care provider)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers | Experimental | Behavioral: Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to ProvidersThis intervention will consist of two related, continuous steps over at least a 12-month period. In the first step, the investigators will query the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW, a repository of near real-time patient data from all VA medical centers) weekly to identify possible lost to follow-up events in a pre-specified time period and for a random sample of about half of the providers at the investigators' study sites. These identified patient charts will be reviewed by Facility Recipients/Cancer Trackers at each site who will then communicate patients truly found to be lost to follow-up to the appropriate provider/care team. |
| Usual Care | No intervention | –In the usual care group, providers will continue to use the existing notification system to receive abnormal test results in accordance with institutional norms, policies, and procedures. There are no formal patient-tracking programs currently at our study sites for all abnormal test results. The investigators will apply our computerized surveillance tools in the usual care arm only when the investigators are ready to conduct the final chart reviews on intervention patients and identify these patients in similar time periods as in the intervention arm. If persistent delays are found, the investigators will inform the patients' primary care providers. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patient charts: Medical charts of Veteran patients who receive care from participating VA facility (Madison VAH, Jesse Brown VAMC, Hines VAH, Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, and Minneapolis VAMC) providers during the one year study period (tentatively October 2016-October 2017) and who have potential delays in diagnostic evaluation for lung, colorectal, liver, bladder, or breast cancer will be reviewed as part of the study.
- Providers: Providers who have seen primary care outpatients in any of the participating facilities or their outpatient clinics within the year-long study period.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patient Charts: Medical charts of patients who are not receiving care from participating facility providers or charts of patients who do not have potential follow-up delays for lung, colorectal, liver, bladder, or breast cancer in the time period of interest.
- Providers: Providers who have not seen primary care outpatients in any of the participating facilities or their outpatient clinics within the time period of interest.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to ProvidersThe investigators will query the VA's database weekly to identify possible lost to follow-up events for a random sample of about half of the providers at our study sites. The queries will use the trigger criteria developed in our previous work for colorectal cancer, lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, breast cancer, and bladder cancer. The list of trigger positive patients will be transmitted to a facility-level recipient who will either disseminate the information to existing facility individual cancer care coordinators/trackers or will review the charts of the "triggered" patients in order to determine whether these patients have been truly lost to follow-up or not. If patients are found to be lost to follow-up, the Facility Recipient or cancer care coordinator/tracker will communicate the need for follow-up to the PACT or primary care provider, using secure emails, phone calls, or in person, depending on which method of communication they deem most appropriate and effective. | Behavioural | Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers |
Primary outcome
Median Time from Initial Follow-up Delay to Follow-up Action
Time frame: 1 year
The investigators will conduct chart reviews of patients shown by our automated surveillance system to have not received appropriate follow-up care in both intervention and control groups at least 6 months after the first documentation of a diagnostic clue (e.g., initial abnormal chest X-ray). Chart review will be used to quantify time in days from documentation of the clinical clue to the time when follow-up action on that clue was initiated.
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Feb 2018.
- Background: PubMed 26974737Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Russo E, Sittig DF, Wei L, Singh H. The Burden of Inbox Notifications in Commercial Electronic Health Records. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):559-60. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0209. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 28366427Bhise V, Meyer AND, Singh H, Wei L, Russo E, Al-Mutairi A, Murphy DR. Errors in Diagnosis of Spinal Epidural Abscesses in the Era of Electronic Health Records. Am J Med. 2017 Aug;130(8):975-981. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.03.009. Epub 2017 Mar 31.
- Results publication: PubMed 28326433Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Vaghani V, Russo E, Sittig DF, Richards KA, Wei L, Wu L, Singh H. Application of Electronic Algorithms to Improve Diagnostic Evaluation for Bladder Cancer. Appl Clin Inform. 2017 Mar 22;8(1):279-290. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2016-10-RA-0176.
- Results publication: PubMed 28138875Meyer AND, Murphy DR, Al-Mutairi A, Sittig DF, Wei L, Russo E, Singh H. Electronic Detection of Delayed Test Result Follow-Up in Patients with Hypothyroidism. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Jul;32(7):753-759. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-3988-z. Epub 2017 Jan 30.
- Results publication: PubMed 28031286Menon S, Singh H, Giardina TD, Rayburn WL, Davis BP, Russo EM, Sittig DF. Safety huddles to proactively identify and address electronic health record safety. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):261-267. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw153.
- Results publication: PubMed 27720139Baldwin JL, Singh H, Sittig DF, Giardina TD. Patient portals and health apps: Pitfalls, promises, and what one might learn from the other. Healthc (Amst). 2017 Sep;5(3):81-85. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.08.004. Epub 2016 Oct 3.
- Results publication: PubMed 27768655Singh H, Graber ML, Hofer TP. Measures to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Clinical Practice. J Patient Saf. 2019 Dec;15(4):311-316. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000338.
- Results publication: PubMed 28334582Singh H. Improving Diagnostic Safety in Primary Care by Unlocking Digital Data. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017 Jan;43(1):29-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2016.10.007. Epub 2016 Oct 14. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 27347474Giardina TD, Sarkar U, Gourley G, Modi V, Meyer AN, Singh H. Online public reactions to frequency of diagnostic errors in US outpatient care. Diagnosis (Berl). 2016 Mar;3(1):17-22. doi: 10.1515/dx-2015-0022. Epub 2016 Feb 19.
- Results publication: PubMed 27530239Singh H, Schiff GD, Graber ML, Onakpoya I, Thompson MJ. The global burden of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):484-494. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005401. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
- Results publication: PubMed 27830226Sittig DF, Wright A, Ash J, Singh H. New Unintended Adverse Consequences of Electronic Health Records. Yearb Med Inform. 2016 Nov 10;(1):7-12. doi: 10.15265/IY-2016-023.
- Results publication: PubMed 28248748Pfoh ER, Engineer L, Singh H, Hall LL, Fried ED, Berger Z, Wu AW. Informing the Design of a New Pragmatic Registry to Stimulate Near Miss Reporting in Ambulatory Care. J Patient Saf. 2021 Apr 1;17(3):e121-e127. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000317.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Lung Cancer
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Study of INBRX-106 and INBRX-106 in Combination With Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors (Hexavalent OX40 Agonist)
Solid Tumor, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
A Prospective ,Multicenter ,Non-interventional ,Real-world Study Observing Changes in Molecular Markers Osimertinib Targeted Therapy in EGFRm NSCLC
Non Small Cell Lung Cancer
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study Evaluating Sotorasib Platinum Doublet Combination Versus Pembrolizumab Platinum Doublet Combination as a Front-Line Therapy in Participants With Stage IV or Advanced Stage IIIB/C Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers (CodeBreaK 202)
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Datopotamab Deruxtecan (Dato-DXd, DS-1062a) in Advanced and/or Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Metastatic Lung Cancer, Advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Hardeep Singh, MD MPH BS principal investigator
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX
5 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers in people with Lung Cancer and Bladder Cancer, run by VA Office of Research and Development at 5 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Feb 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 5 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Median Time from Initial Follow-up Delay to Follow-up Action (time frame: 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01710293, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Feb 2018.