Metastatic Breast CancerPCDMNCT07599618
Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Decision-Making Support Tool for Older Adults With Advanced Breast Cancer and Their Care Partners
A study testing Decision-making support tool in people with Metastatic Breast Cancer, run by University of Rochester at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility for a patient centered decision-making support tool for older adults with metastatic breast cancer and their care partners. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 65 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Metastatic Breast Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Decision-making support tool
- How many people
- 150 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 Aug 2026to 1 Aug 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 65 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patient Inclusion Criteria:
- A diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer
- Age 65 or older
- Currently receiving systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer or considering a plan to initiate systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer
- Able to speak and read English (because the Manta Cares platform is presently only offered in English only)
- Able to provide informed consent
Show all 11Show fewer
- Care Partner Inclusion Criteria:
- Age 18 or older
- Able to speak and read English (because the Manta Cares platform is presently only offered in English only)
- Able to provide informed consent
- Verbal permission from patient to enroll their designated care partner
Who cannot join
- Patient Exclusion Criteria:
- Early-stage breast cancer
- Diagnosis of any other cancer besides metastatic breast cancer
- Care Partner Exclusion Criteria:
- 1. Verbal permission from patient to enroll care partner not received.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Dr. Allison Magnuson Principal Investigator contact
About this study
The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility for a patient centered decision-making support tool for older adults with metastatic breast cancer and their care partners.
Read the detailed description
The primary objective (Aim 1) of this study will be to evaluate feasibility of utilizing the patient-centered decision-making (PCDM) tool for older adults with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The PCDM tool has been developed by the investigators in collaboration with Manta Cares, Inc. During the development process, we have integrated Geriatric Assessment (GA), completed fully by patients, into the PCDM tool, along with potential supportive care strategies (e.g., recommendations) that could be considered by patients and their care partners if areas of impairment are noted on the GA embedded into the PDCM tool. Feasibility of the adapted PCDM tool will be assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively, and through mixed methods (integrating quantitative and qualitative data) to provide a deeper understanding of aspects of implementation across settings.
- Conditions
- Metastatic Breast Cancer
- Being tested
- Decision-making support tool
- Medical subject headings
- Breast Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Decision-making support toolOther
Determine the feasibility for a patient centered decision-making support tool for older adults with metastatic breast cancer and their care partners.
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient and care partner Acceptability of Intervention (AIM)
Measure different aspects of intervention implementation. The AIM, IAM, and FIM measures were jointly developed through a consensus process involving 63 experts (e.g., implementation scientists, health professionals), and psychometric properties for the three scales have been established. All three scales were developed to evaluate fit or match of a potential intervention (acceptability measure evaluates personal fit to the individual, appropriateness measure evaluates the societal or technical fit, and the feasibility measure evaluates practical fit. Each scale has 4-items with a 5-point Likert scale response (total score 4-20 for each measure), for a total of 12 items for all three scales. No specialized training is needed to administer or score the measure and it is written at a 5th grade reading level. Although cut-off scores for interpretation are not available, higher scores indicate greater degree of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility respectively.
Measured: Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM)
Measure different aspects of intervention implementation. The AIM, IAM, and FIM measures were jointly developed through a consensus process involving 63 experts (e.g., implementation scientists, health professionals), and psychometric properties for the three scales have been established. All three scales were developed to evaluate fit or match of a potential intervention (acceptability measure evaluates personal fit to the individual, appropriateness measure evaluates the societal or technical fit, and the feasibility measure evaluates practical fit. Each scale has 4-items with a 5-point Likert scale response (total score 4-20 for each measure), for a total of 12 items for all three scales. No specialized training is needed to administer or score the measure and it is written at a 5th grade reading level. Although cut-off scores for interpretation are not available, higher scores indicate greater degree of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility respectively.
Measured: Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Feasibility of Intervention (FIM)
Measure different aspects of intervention implementation. The AIM, IAM, and FIM measures were jointly developed through a consensus process involving 63 experts (e.g., implementation scientists, health professionals), and psychometric properties for the three scales have been established. All three scales were developed to evaluate fit or match of a potential intervention (acceptability measure evaluates personal fit to the individual, appropriateness measure evaluates the societal or technical fit, and the feasibility measure evaluates practical fit. Each scale has 4-items with a 5-point Likert scale response (total score 4-20 for each measure), for a total of 12 items for all three scales. No specialized training is needed to administer or score the measure and it is written at a 5th grade reading level. Although cut-off scores for interpretation are not available, higher scores indicate greater degree of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility respectively.
Measured: Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Secondary outcomes (5)
Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13)
The PAM 13 (originally developed as a 22-item measure and later modified to 13 items) is a valid and reliable tool to measure stages of activation, including belief that the patient role is important and having the confidence and knowledge to take action. The PAM-13 is scored 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater patient activation.
Measured: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (DSE)
The DSE scale measures self-confidence and belief in one's abilities in decision-making. The 11-item questionnaire assesses confidence in aspects such as ability to get the facts about treatment options available, including choices and benefits and side effects of choices, and ability to understand the information and ask questions/express concerns. Scoring is converted to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy in decision-making. Prior studies suggest that scores below 70 were observed in patients who were significantly less likely to engage in shared decision-making and more likely to report decision regret later.43-45 This measure has been utilized in other studies of patients with advanced cancer.
Measured: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)
The SDM-Q-9 measures the extent to which patients are involved in the process of decision-making from the perspective of the patient. The instrument has 9 questions and is a reliable and well accepted, with high internal consistency and discriminative validity. The measure is scored on a scale of 0-100 and can be used to assess longitudinal change in shared decision making in clinical settings with an MCID of 4 points used in prior studies.
Measured: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Caregiver Activation Measure (CG-PAM)
Caregiver Activation Measure: A measure that was developed and validated to assess care partner's' knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management of a chronic medical condition. Greater degrees of activation (e.g., higher degree of knowledge, skill, and confidence) can facilitate the shared decision-making process.
Measured: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Heath Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ)
The HCCQ is a measure of satisfaction with communication that evaluates patients and care partners perceptions of autonomy support and shared decision making and evaluates whether they feel their oncology clinician(s) understand their perspective, provides choices, and encourage participation in decisions. The HCCQ measure has been validated in older adult populations. The full HCCQ scale has a reliability of >0.9. The six-item version will be utilized, which has demonstrated excellent internal consistency and construct validity in the oncology setting.
Measured: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 May 2026
- Study start1 Aug 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Jul 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Aug 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Metastatic Breast CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of RochesterThe 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
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- To determine the feasibility for the PCDM tool for older adults with mBC and their care partners, we will conduct a single arm pilot study within the Wilmot Cancer Institute and affiliated satellite locations in the network. N=150 older adults (aged 65+) with mBC will be enrolled over a nine-month period; one care partner per patient may also elect to enroll with each patient, however patients can still participate without a care partner. Patients and care partners will be followed for a six-month period after enrollment. All study participants (patients and their care partners) will get the same intervention of the PCDM tool.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 150 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Rochester
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07599618
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UOCPC25063
- Other IDs
- STUDY00010968
- Acronym
- PCDM
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 14 May 2026
- Last updated
- 26 May 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 May 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Decision-Making Support Tool for Older Adults With Advanced Breast Cancer and Their Care Partners
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07599618
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PCDM / UOCPC25063
- Conditions
- Metastatic Breast Cancer
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 150 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of RochesterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Aug 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jul 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Aug 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 20 May 2026 (actual)
- 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.
The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility for a patient centered decision-making support tool for older adults with metastatic breast cancer and their care partners.
Detailed description
The primary objective (Aim 1) of this study will be to evaluate feasibility of utilizing the patient-centered decision-making (PCDM) tool for older adults with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The PCDM tool has been developed by the investigators in collaboration with Manta Cares, Inc. During the development process, we have integrated Geriatric Assessment (GA), completed fully by patients, into the PCDM tool, along with potential supportive care strategies (e.g., recommendations) that could be considered by patients and their care partners if areas of impairment are noted on the GA embedded into the PDCM tool. Feasibility of the adapted PCDM tool will be assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively, and through mixed methods (integrating quantitative and qualitative data) to provide a deeper understanding of aspects of implementation across settings.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Model description
- To determine the feasibility for the PCDM tool for older adults with mBC and their care partners, we will conduct a single arm pilot study within the Wilmot Cancer Institute and affiliated satellite locations in the network. N=150 older adults (aged 65+) with mBC will be enrolled over a nine-month period; one care partner per patient may also elect to enroll with each patient, however patients can still participate without a care partner. Patients and care partners will be followed for a six-month period after enrollment. All study participants (patients and their care partners) will get the same intervention of the PCDM tool.
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 65 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (11 listed)
- A diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer
- Age 65 or older
- Currently receiving systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer or considering a plan to initiate systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer
- Able to speak and read English (because the Manta Cares platform is presently only offered in English only)
- Able to provide informed consent
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Early-stage breast cancer
- Diagnosis of any other cancer besides metastatic breast cancer
- 1. Verbal permission from patient to enroll care partner not received.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Decision-making support toolDetermine the feasibility for a patient centered decision-making support tool for older adults with metastatic breast cancer and their care partners. | Other | – |
Primary outcome
Patient and care partner Acceptability of Intervention (AIM)
Time frame: Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Measure different aspects of intervention implementation. The AIM, IAM, and FIM measures were jointly developed through a consensus process involving 63 experts (e.g., implementation scientists, health professionals), and psychometric properties for the three scales have been established. All three scales were developed to evaluate fit or match of a potential intervention (acceptability measure evaluates personal fit to the individual, appropriateness measure evaluates the societal or technical fit, and the feasibility measure evaluates practical fit. Each scale has 4-items with a 5-point Likert scale response (total score 4-20 for each measure), for a total of 12 items for all three scales. No specialized training is needed to administer or score the measure and it is written at a 5th grade reading level. Although cut-off scores for interpretation are not available, higher scores indicate greater degree of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility respectively.
Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM)
Time frame: Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Measure different aspects of intervention implementation. The AIM, IAM, and FIM measures were jointly developed through a consensus process involving 63 experts (e.g., implementation scientists, health professionals), and psychometric properties for the three scales have been established. All three scales were developed to evaluate fit or match of a potential intervention (acceptability measure evaluates personal fit to the individual, appropriateness measure evaluates the societal or technical fit, and the feasibility measure evaluates practical fit. Each scale has 4-items with a 5-point Likert scale response (total score 4-20 for each measure), for a total of 12 items for all three scales. No specialized training is needed to administer or score the measure and it is written at a 5th grade reading level. Although cut-off scores for interpretation are not available, higher scores indicate greater degree of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility respectively.
Feasibility of Intervention (FIM)
Time frame: Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Measure different aspects of intervention implementation. The AIM, IAM, and FIM measures were jointly developed through a consensus process involving 63 experts (e.g., implementation scientists, health professionals), and psychometric properties for the three scales have been established. All three scales were developed to evaluate fit or match of a potential intervention (acceptability measure evaluates personal fit to the individual, appropriateness measure evaluates the societal or technical fit, and the feasibility measure evaluates practical fit. Each scale has 4-items with a 5-point Likert scale response (total score 4-20 for each measure), for a total of 12 items for all three scales. No specialized training is needed to administer or score the measure and it is written at a 5th grade reading level. Although cut-off scores for interpretation are not available, higher scores indicate greater degree of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility respectively.
5 secondary outcomes
Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13)
Time frame: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (DSE)
Time frame: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)
Time frame: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Caregiver Activation Measure (CG-PAM)
Time frame: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Heath Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ)
Time frame: Time Point 1: (within 2 months of informed consent) Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 May 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes
Related trials for Metastatic Breast Cancer
RecruitingPhase 2
A Clinical Study on Prophylactic RespOnse To hEtrombopag for Secondary Prevention in Anti-Cancer Therapy-induced Thrombocytopeniae
Breast Cancer Patients at High Risk of Chemotherapy-induced Thrombocytopenia (CTIT)
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Trastuzumab Deruxtecan and Lovastatin in HER2-low and Ultralow Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer, Advanced Breast Cancer
RecruitingPhase 2
A Vaccine (STEMVAC) With Standard Endocrine-Based Therapy or Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone Receptor Positive, HER2 Negative Breast Cancer
Anatomic Stage IV Breast Cancer AJCC v8, Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Carcinoma
RecruitingObservational study
Collection of CSF Samples From Participants With Metastatic Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and HER2+ Breast Cancer With no Prior History Nor Active Radiographically Detectable Brain Metastases
Breast Cancer, Breast Carcinoma
Not yet recruiting
Prospective Study to Evaluate the Clinical Utility of ctDNA Tumor Fraction (TF) for Detection of ESR1 Mutations in HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC)
Breast Cancer, Metastatic Breast 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.
Dr. Allison Magnuson Principal Investigator contact
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Decision-making support tool in people with Metastatic Breast Cancer, run by University of Rochester at 1 site 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 11 inclusion and 5 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: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Dr. Allison Magnuson Principal Investigator ((585) 275-5823, Allison_magnuson@urmc.rochester.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient and care partner Acceptability of Intervention (AIM) (time frame: Time Point 2: Occurs 3 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks) Time Point 3: Occurs 6 months after Time Point 1 start (+/- 3 weeks)). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 May 2026.