Palliative CareNCT07789093
Coaching in Palliative Surgical Oncology
A study testing CONCORD coaching intervention in people with Palliative Care and Advanced Cancer, run by Singapore General Hospital at 1 site in Singapore.
Trial summary
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a serious illness coaching intervention (CONCORD) in improving quality of serious illness conversation (SIC), treatment decision-making, goal-concordant care delivery and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer considered for palliative interventions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 to 99 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Palliative Care, Advanced Cancer
- What is being tested?
- CONCORD coaching intervention
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 220 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSingapore
- Study dates
- 24 Mar 2026to 30 Sep 2028
- 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 21 to 99 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patient:
- Aged 21 or above;
- Diagnosis of advanced cancer, i.e. stage 3 or 4 solid organ
- Consulted for palliative surgery or other interventions, i.e. procedures aimed at relieving symptoms and improving quality of life
- Able to speak English or Mandarin;
- Caregiver
Show all 9Show fewer
- Aged 21 or above;
- Self-endorsed or identified by the enrolled patient as an unpaid spouse/partner, relative or friend who knows them well and who provides regular care, who does not have to live in the same dwelling
- Able to speak English or Mandarin.
Who cannot join
- (i). Patient
- Patient refusal,
- Active mental illness or severe dementia, or being certified unfit to make medical decision by a specialist physician,
- Pregnant Women
- (ii). Caregiver
- Self-reported severe mental illness, dementia, active suicidal ideation, uncorrected hearing loss;
- Unable to complete caregiver-reported outcomes.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Singapore1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Singapore General Hospital
Singapore, 169608
Louis Shee Siang Lim, Bachelor's degree, +65 63065636, lim.shee.sl@sgh.com.sg
About this study
Official title: Serious Illness Coaching for Patients With Advanced Cancer Undergoing Palliative Interventions
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a serious illness coaching intervention (CONCORD) in improving quality of serious illness conversation (SIC), treatment decision-making, goal-concordant care delivery and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer considered for palliative interventions. CONCORD will be delivered by lay healthcare providers. We compare outcomes between participants receiving CONCORD vs usual care.
Read the detailed description
Patients with advanced cancer often suffer from tumor-related complications requiring palliative interventions. These interventions are aimed at relieving symptoms or improving quality of life and may include surgery, endoscopy, or other interventional radiology procedures. Decision-making for palliative interventions often require careful consideration of patients' values and treatment preferences. These decisions are also high-stakes given the risks of significant procedural-related morbidity and mortality. Prior studies in high risks surgical cohorts have found that peri-operative communication was often suboptimal, contributed by a lack of clarification of patients' health goals and treatment preferences. Decisional regret following palliative surgery was also common.
Patient-directed coaching has been shown improving disease coping and end-of-life decision making in patients with advanced cancer. However, their role in palliative surgical or other interventional decision-making is unclear. As such, we propose a serious illness coaching intervention to improve readiness and decision-making (CONCORD) for patients with advanced cancer considered for palliative surgery or other interventions. Coaching sessions will be delivered by a trained lay care coach and focus on decision-making and future planning aspects of palliative care before and for up to 6 months after consideration for palliative interventions. CONCORD will be implemented in the context of primary palliative care trained surgeons who are adept in delivering primary palliative care interventions, including the conduct of serious illness conversations (SIC).
In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness and implementational process of CONCORD intervention in patients with advanced cancer considered for palliative interventions. To evaluate effectiveness, we conduct randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing patient-centric outcomes (quality of SIC, decisional conflict, goal-concordant care delivery, quality of life) before and up to 6 months after enrollment, between those receiving CONCORD vs usual care. We also explore the impact of CONCORD on family caregivers. Usual care will include patients managed by primary palliative care trained surgeons without patient coaching sessions. We embed an implementational process evaluation in our RCT in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design, using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, to enhance understanding of the proposed program, its interaction with contextual factors, barriers and facilitators, and how these together influence outcomes.
- Conditions
- Palliative Care, Advanced Cancer
- Being tested
- CONCORD coaching intervention
- Keywords
- Palliative Care, Surgical Oncology, Oncology, Care coach, Coaching, Decision making, Cancer, Quality of Life, Caregiver, Advanced Cancer
- Medical subject headings
- Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
CONCORD coaching interventionOther
The care coach will focus on improving readiness and preparedness for components that will be discussed during serious illness conversations (SICs) - (disease understanding/prognosis, fear/worry, goals of care, treatment expectations, informational preferences, trade-offs, caregiver involvement). The coach will also equip patients with basic tools for treatment decision-making and advanced care planning (ACP). The session will be conducted in-person over 30-to-45 minutes. All coaching content is adapted from the serious illness care program developed by Ariadne Labs. This includes an adapted version of the advanced cancer and surgery question prompt list, elements of the serious illness conversations and the "What Matters to Me" serious illness care program booklet. The SICs are conducted at least 12 hours prior to palliative intervention and findings conveyed to surgical team. Coaching sessions would be focused on decision-making and future planning aspects of palliative care.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Usual Care | No intervention | Participants receive care under the primary palliative care surgeons, supported by specialist palliative care teams when needed. Serious illness conversations (SICs - disease understanding/prognosis, fear/worry, goals of care, treatment expectations, informational preferences, trade-offs, caregiver involvement) are conducted as per discretion of the surgical team and part of peri-intervention communication upon referral for consideration of palliative surgery or other interventions. No structured coaching is delivered. |
| CONCORD Coaching Intervention | Experimental | Participants are actively engaged by a trained lay care coach, where serious illness conversations and their various element will be explored (disease understanding/prognosis, fear/worry, goals of care, treatment expectations, informational preferences, trade-offs, caregiver involvement). Following surgical-team led peri-interventional communication, participants receive dedicated coaching at baseline 1 (pre-coaching), baseline 2 (post-coaching) and 1, 3, 6-months after enrolment. Receives: Other: CONCORD coaching intervention |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Quality of serious illness conversations (SIC) with patients
We measured the quality of the SIC conducted based on number of components explored. The seven components explored were disease understanding/prognosis, fear/worry, goals of care, treatment expectations, informational preferences, trade-offs, caregiver involvement. The team will ask questions from Serious Illness Conversations Guide (Ariadne Labs), which enable Healthcare providers to understand patients' values and goals. This would be used as part of a palliative care delivery quality indicator. Team members will share with the caregivers of the patient's goals and palliative care needs when the patient is being coached by the care coach.
Measured: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Secondary outcomes (10)
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in patients
We measured HRQoL in patients with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). FACT-G is a well-validated HRQoL questionnaire that covers 4 domains - physical well-being (7 items), social/family well-being (7 items), emotional well-being (6 items) and functional well-being (7 items). Each item has response choices in a 5-point Likert-type scale, with a maximum value of 4 (being, "Very much") and a minimum value of 0 (being "Not at all"). Higher scores indicate a better quality of life.
Measured: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in patients
We also measured HRQoL in patients with the 5-level EuroQol-5 Dimension instrument (EQ-5D-5L). EQ-5D-5L is a HRQoL questionnaire with five domains (mobility, selfcare, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) and has five levels for each domain. Scores from all five items will be used to derive a single utility score ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 representing the worst possible health to 1 representing perfect health. It also contains a health state component and a visual analog scale.
Measured: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Decisional Conflict in patients
We measured decisional conflict in patients using the Traditional Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). DCS is a validated 16-item instrument that measures personal perceptions of uncertainty in choosing among options, the factors contributing to uncertainty, and the quality of the decision made. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = Strongly agree to 4 = Strongly disagree). Scores are summed, divided by 16, and multiplied by 25 to produce a total score ranging from 0 (no decisional conflict) to 100 (extremely high decisional conflict). Lower scores indicate less decisional conflict and better decision support.
Measured: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Goals of care and life priorities in patients
We determined the goals of care and life priorities in patients by using the Life Priorities Survey (LPS). LPS assesses patients' goals and priorities for their medical care across five domains: prolonging life, curing a disease, establishing a diagnosis, preserving function or independence, and relieving symptoms. This tool identifies patients' primary goals of care and will be used to assess concordance between patient-reported priorities and the treatments and interventions received. Changes in life priorities over the cancer and surgical journey will also be examined.
Measured: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Understanding of the patient's goals and SIC components in caregivers
We measured the caregiver's understanding of the patient's goals and SIC components by using modified questions based on the Serious Illness Conversations Guide (Ariadne Labs). The outcome measure will be assessed by alignment and concordance with the SIC responses and seven components provided by the caregiver's respective patient. The seven components assessed are disease understanding/prognosis, fear/worry, goals of care, treatment expectations, informational preferences, trade-offs, caregiver involvement.
Measured: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Decisional conflict in caregivers
We measured decisional conflict in patients using a modified Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) tailored to the perspective of the caregivers. DCS is a validated 16-item instrument that measures personal perceptions of uncertainty in choosing among options, the factors contributing to uncertainty, and the quality of the decision made. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = Strongly agree to 4 = Strongly disagree). Scores are summed, divided by 16, and multiplied by 25 to produce a total score ranging from 0 (no decisional conflict) to 100 (extremely high decisional conflict). Lower scores indicate less decisional conflict and better decision support.
Measured: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Satisfaction with care in caregivers
We measured the caregiver satisfaction by using the Family Satisfaction with the End-of-Life Care-2 (FAMCARE-2). FAMCARE-2 is a validated 17-item instrument measuring family caregiver satisfaction with palliative care. It assesses satisfaction across four domains: management of physical symptoms and comfort, provision of information, family support, and patient psychological care. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = "Very satisfied" to 5 = "Very dissatisfied"). Scores are summed to produce a total score ranging from 17 to 85, with lower scores indicating greater satisfaction with care. The FAMCARE-2 will be used to evaluate caregivers' perceived quality of communication, support, and overall satisfaction with the surgical and palliative care provided throughout the surgical journey.
Measured: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Quality of life in caregivers
We measured the caregiver quality of life with the Singapore Caregiver Quality of Life Scale (SCQOLS-15). SCQOLS-15 is a validated 15-item instrument developed and normed specifically for caregivers of patients in the Singapore context. It assesses caregiver quality of life across multiple domains capturing the physical, emotional, social, and practical impact of caregiving for a patient with serious illness. The SCQOLS-15 will be used to evaluate the broader impact of the patient's advanced cancer and surgical journey on caregiver well-being, and to assess whether the CONCORD coaching program - through improved communication, goal alignment, and caregiver preparedness - translates into meaningful improvements in caregiver quality of life over the study period.
Measured: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Healthcare utilization of patients
We determined the healthcare utilization of patients by extracting the length of index hospitalization, all-cause emergency department visits, and total hospital days up to 6 months post-surgery.
Measured: Up to 6 months post Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Cost of intervention(s) for patients
We determined the cost of intervention(s) by extracting inpatient and outpatient billing records will be considered in total all-cause healthcare costs up to 6 months post-surgery.
Measured: Up to 6 months post Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Aug 2026
- Study start24 Mar 2026
- Primary completion30 Mar 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Sep 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Palliative CareStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 220 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Singapore General Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Jolene Wong Si Min, Singapore General Hospital
- Investigators
- Jolene Si Min Wong, MBBS, MMed (Surgery), MPH, Principal investigator, Singapore General Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07789093
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HCSAINV25jan-0004
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 13 Aug 2026
- Last updated
- 27 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Serious Illness Coaching for Patients With Advanced Cancer Undergoing Palliative Interventions
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07789093
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HCSAINV25jan-0004
- Conditions
- Palliative Care, Advanced Cancer
- Keywords
- Palliative Care, Surgical Oncology, Oncology, Care coach, Coaching, Decision making, Cancer, Quality of Life
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 220 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Singapore General HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School
- Study start
- 24 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Mar 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Sep 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 27 Aug 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.
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a serious illness coaching intervention (CONCORD) in improving quality of serious illness conversation (SIC), treatment decision-making, goal-concordant care delivery and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer considered for palliative interventions. CONCORD will be delivered by lay healthcare providers. We compare outcomes between participants receiving CONCORD vs usual care.
Detailed description
Patients with advanced cancer often suffer from tumor-related complications requiring palliative interventions. These interventions are aimed at relieving symptoms or improving quality of life and may include surgery, endoscopy, or other interventional radiology procedures. Decision-making for palliative interventions often require careful consideration of patients' values and treatment preferences. These decisions are also high-stakes given the risks of significant procedural-related morbidity and mortality. Prior studies in high risks surgical cohorts have found that peri-operative communication was often suboptimal, contributed by a lack of clarification of patients' health goals and treatment preferences. Decisional regret following palliative surgery was also common.
Patient-directed coaching has been shown improving disease coping and end-of-life decision making in patients with advanced cancer. However, their role in palliative surgical or other interventional decision-making is unclear. As such, we propose a serious illness coaching intervention to improve readiness and decision-making (CONCORD) for patients with advanced cancer considered for palliative surgery or other interventions. Coaching sessions will be delivered by a trained lay care coach and focus on decision-making and future planning aspects of palliative care before and for up to 6 months after consideration for palliative interventions. CONCORD will be implemented in the context of primary palliative care trained surgeons who are adept in delivering primary palliative care interventions, including the conduct of serious illness conversations (SIC).
In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness and implementational process of CONCORD intervention in patients with advanced cancer considered for palliative interventions. To evaluate effectiveness, we conduct randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing patient-centric outcomes (quality of SIC, decisional conflict, goal-concordant care delivery, quality of life) before and up to 6 months after enrollment, between those receiving CONCORD vs usual care. We also explore the impact of CONCORD on family caregivers. Usual care will include patients managed by primary palliative care trained surgeons without patient coaching sessions. We embed an implementational process evaluation in our RCT in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design, using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, to enhance understanding of the proposed program, its interaction with contextual factors, barriers and facilitators, and how these together influence outcomes.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Usual Care | No intervention | –Participants receive care under the primary palliative care surgeons, supported by specialist palliative care teams when needed. Serious illness conversations (SICs - disease understanding/prognosis, fear/worry, goals of care, treatment expectations, informational preferences, trade-offs, caregiver involvement) are conducted as per discretion of the surgical team and part of peri-intervention communication upon referral for consideration of palliative surgery or other interventions. No structured coaching is delivered. |
| CONCORD Coaching Intervention | Experimental | Other: CONCORD coaching interventionParticipants are actively engaged by a trained lay care coach, where serious illness conversations and their various element will be explored (disease understanding/prognosis, fear/worry, goals of care, treatment expectations, informational preferences, trade-offs, caregiver involvement). Following surgical-team led peri-interventional communication, participants receive dedicated coaching at baseline 1 (pre-coaching), baseline 2 (post-coaching) and 1, 3, 6-months after enrolment. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Patient:
- Aged 21 or above;
- Diagnosis of advanced cancer, i.e. stage 3 or 4 solid organ
- Consulted for palliative surgery or other interventions, i.e. procedures aimed at relieving symptoms and improving quality of life
- Able to speak English or Mandarin;
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- (i). Patient
- Patient refusal,
- Active mental illness or severe dementia, or being certified unfit to make medical decision by a specialist physician,
- Pregnant Women
- (ii). Caregiver
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 |
|---|---|---|
| CONCORD coaching interventionThe care coach will focus on improving readiness and preparedness for components that will be discussed during serious illness conversations (SICs) - (disease understanding/prognosis, fear/worry, goals of care, treatment expectations, informational preferences, trade-offs, caregiver involvement). The coach will also equip patients with basic tools for treatment decision-making and advanced care planning (ACP). The session will be conducted in-person over 30-to-45 minutes. All coaching content is adapted from the serious illness care program developed by Ariadne Labs. This includes an adapted version of the advanced cancer and surgery question prompt list, elements of the serious illness conversations and the "What Matters to Me" serious illness care program booklet. The SICs are conducted at least 12 hours prior to palliative intervention and findings conveyed to surgical team. Coaching sessions would be focused on decision-making and future planning aspects of palliative care. | Other | CONCORD Coaching Intervention |
Primary outcome
Quality of serious illness conversations (SIC) with patients
Time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
We measured the quality of the SIC conducted based on number of components explored. The seven components explored were disease understanding/prognosis, fear/worry, goals of care, treatment expectations, informational preferences, trade-offs, caregiver involvement. The team will ask questions from Serious Illness Conversations Guide (Ariadne Labs), which enable Healthcare providers to understand patients' values and goals. This would be used as part of a palliative care delivery quality indicator. Team members will share with the caregivers of the patient's goals and palliative care needs when the patient is being coached by the care coach.
10 secondary outcomes
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in patients
Time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in patients
Time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Decisional Conflict in patients
Time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Goals of care and life priorities in patients
Time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Understanding of the patient's goals and SIC components in caregivers
Time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Decisional conflict in caregivers
Time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Satisfaction with care in caregivers
Time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Quality of life in caregivers
Time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Healthcare utilization of patients
Time frame: Up to 6 months post Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
Cost of intervention(s) for patients
Time frame: Up to 6 months post Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)
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 27 Aug 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Palliative Care
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Single Fraction or Multi-fraction Palliative Radiation Therapy for the Improvement of Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Gynecologic Cancers
Metastatic Malignant Female Reproductive System Neoplasm
Enrolling by invitationPhase 3
Nudging Effective and Equitable Delivery of Specialty Palliative Care
Serious Illness, Palliative
Not yet recruiting
Integrating Rhythmical Massage in Palliative Care
Palliative Care, Health Services, Palliative Care
Not yet recruitingPhase 1/2
Periganglionic Resiniferatoxin for the Treatment of Intractable Pain Due to Cancer-induced Bone Pain
Intractable Pain, Palliative Care
RecruitingPhase 2
Chemotherapy With or Without Immunotherapy for Peritoneal Mesothelioma
Peritoneal Malignant Mesothelioma
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.
Jolene Si Min Wong, MBBS, MMed (Surgery), MPH principal investigator
Singapore General Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing CONCORD coaching intervention in people with Palliative Care and Advanced Cancer, run by Singapore General Hospital at 1 site in Singapore.
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 9 inclusion and 7 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Aug 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 Singapore. 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 Xindi Huang, MSc Psychology (+65 63065636, huang.xindi@nccs.com.sg), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Quality of serious illness conversations (SIC) with patients (time frame: Baseline 1 (pre-coaching), Baseline 2 (post-coaching), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after Baseline 1 (pre-coaching)). 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 27 Aug 2026.