Predictive Cancer Model Clinical Trial
— VALUE_PERSARCOfficial title:
The Value of a Risk Prediction Tool (PERSARC) for Effective Treatment Decisions of Soft-tissue Sarcomas Patients
The goal of this clinical trial is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients' knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity Soft-Tissue Sarcoma-patients. High-grade (2-3) extremity Soft-Tissue Sarcoma patients (>= 18 years) will either receive standard care (control group) or care with the use of PERSARC; i.e. PERSARC will be used in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in consultation in which the oncological/orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnoses and discusses the benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options (intervention group)
Status | Recruiting |
Enrollment | 120 |
Est. completion date | July 1, 2025 |
Est. primary completion date | July 1, 2024 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | All |
Age group | 18 Years and older |
Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: - Patients >= 18 years - Histologically diagnosed with grade 2-3 STS in their extremities. - Who do not have a treatment plan yet - Dutch fluency and literacy - Mentally competent - Signed informed consent - Patient owns a phone with internet access (WiFi) Exclusion Criteria: - Patient that are treated without curative intent - Patient that needs to be treated with chemotherapy or isolated limb perfusion - Patients were surgery is not indicated - Sarcoma subtypes not included in the PERSARC risk assessment tool In summary: patients with sarcoma subtypes and/or patients that need to be treated with other treatment modalities than those included in the PERSARC risk assessment tool are excluded. |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Netherlands | Netherlands Cancer Institue | Amsterdam | Noord-Holland |
Netherlands | UMC Groningen | Groningen | |
Netherlands | Leiden University Medical Center | Leiden | Zuid-holland |
Netherlands | Maastricht UMC | Maastricht | Limburg |
Netherlands | Radboud UMC | Nijmegen | Gelderland |
Netherlands | Erasmus MC | Rotterdam | Zuid-Holland |
Netherlands | UMC Utrecht | Utrecht |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Leiden University Medical Center |
Netherlands,
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Other | process evaluation - a) the involvement of patients in decision-making | audio recordings of the patient-clinician consultation
The audio-recordings of the patient consultations will be transcribed verbatim and assessed by two independent reviewers using the OPTION-5 |
T1 | |
Other | process evaluation - b) the extent and way PERSARC is used by patients and professionals | To gain insight into (b) the extent and way in which PERSARC is used by patients, user data from the VALUE-PERSARC app will be evaluated at group level (control vs intervention) (Google analytics within the app). Use of PERSARC by professionals will be examined through a checklist regarding the use of PERSARC in patient consultations and MTB
Additionally, to gain further understanding of the integration of PERSARC in treatment decision making processes, 5-15 randomly selected patients and 3-4 STS professionals (one per intervention hospital) will be interviewed using a semi-structured interview scheme. |
end of study | |
Other | process evaluation - c) how satisfied patients and professionals were with the use of PERSARC | Satisfaction with the use of PERSARC (c) for patients and professionals who participated in the intervention arm and all professionals will be evaluated with a self-developed satisfaction questionnaire send to all eligible patients and professionals. Patients in the intervention arm will fill in the questionnaire within the VALUE-PERSARC app. Professionals are asked to fill in the questionnaire online, with reminders send after one week. | T1 | |
Primary | Decisional Conflict Scale | Decisional conflict scale
Items are given a score value of: strongly agree (0) - strongly disagree (4) Total score: 16 items are a) summed, b) divided by 16, and c) multiplied by 25. Scores range from 0 (no decisional conflict) to 100 (extremely high decisional conflict) |
T1 (one week after treatment decision) | |
Primary | Informed choice | combined outcome incorporating knowledge (self-developed questionnaire), attitudes concerning trade-offs between quality and length of life (QQ_Questionnaire, see below) and treatment decision
self-developed knowledge questionnaire: a knowledge score was considered to reflect adequate decision-relevant knowledge if at least 50% of knowledge statements were correctly answered, which means a knowledge score =3 for the present study; no knowledge (0) - high knowledge (6) |
T1 (one week after treatment decision) | |
Secondary | Decision Regret Scale | Decision Regret Scale
Items are given a score value of: strongly disagree (1) - strongly agree(5) Total score: Scoring consist of reversing the scores of the 2 negatively phrased items, then taking the mean of the 5 items. These means were converted to a score ranging from 0 to 100 by subtracting 1 and multiplying by 25. |
T3 (6m), T4 (12months) | |
Secondary | Cancer Worry Scale | Cancer Worry Scale
Level of cancer worry was measured by the Dutch version of the Cancer Worry Scale, consisting of 6 questions with 4 response options (1 = not at all or rarely; 2 = sometimes; 3 = often; 4 = almost all the time), such that each individual attains a score ranging from 6 (minimum worry) to 24 (maximum worry). |
T1 (one week after treatment decision), T2 (3months), T3 (6months), T4 (12months) | |
Secondary | SDM-Q-9 | Involvement in decision-making according to patients.
Items are scored from completely disagree (0) to completely agree (5) Summing up all items leads to a raw total score between 0-45. Multiplication of the raw score by 20/9 provides a score forced (transformed) to range from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates the lowest possible level of SDM and 100 indicates the highest extent of SDM. |
T1 (one week after treatment decision), T2 (3months), T3 (6months), T4 (12months) | |
Secondary | PROMIS Global health | Patient reported outcome measure
10 item questionnaire lowest score (0) to highest (20). 0 Points represents the patient's most severe physical and/or mental impairment, while 20 represents the best possible state of health. The results of the questions are used to calculate two summary scores: a Global Physical Health Score and a Global Mental Health score. These scores are then standardized to the general population, using the "T-Score". The average "T-Score" for the United States population is 50 points, with a standard deviation of 10 points. Higher scores are indicative of a healthier patient. |
T1 (one week after treatment decision), T2 (3months), T3 (6months), T4 (12months) | |
Secondary | PROMIS Physical function | Patient reported outcome measure
10 item questionnaire lowest score (0) to highest (20). Scores are standardized to the general population, using the "T-Score". The average "T-Score" for the United States population is 50 points, with a standard deviation of 10 points. Higher scores are indicative of a healthier patient. |
T1 (one week after treatment decision), T2 (3months), T3 (6months), T4 (12months) | |
Secondary | EQ-5D-5L | The EQ-5D-5L descriptive system comprises five dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and anxiety). Lowest score (1) - highest (5)
Higher scores indicate unable to/ extreme problems |
T1 (one week after treatment decision), T2 (3months), T3 (6months), T4 (12months) | |
Secondary | Medical consumption questionnaire (iMCQ) | Medical consumption questionnaire (health care cost) focusing on healthcare use inside and outside the hospital. For the evaluation of cost, standard prices published in the Dutch costing guidelines will be used. | T2 (3months), T3 (6months), T4 (12months) | |
Secondary | Productivity cost questionnaire (iPCQ) Cost of absenteeism from paid work will be calculated using the friction cost method. | absenteeism/presenteeism from paid work | T2 (3months), T3 (6months), T4 (12months) |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT06023966 -
A Clinical Prospective Study to Validate a Risk Scoring Model for the HMGC After Curative Surgery
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT04535466 -
Diagnosis Predictive Modle for Dense Density Breast Tissue Based on Radiomics
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT03280134 -
A Prospective Validation Cohort Study of a Prediction System on nSLN Metastasis in Early Breast Cancer
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT03253107 -
Predicting Biomarker of Gastric Cancer Chemotherapy Response
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT06364371 -
Dynamic Multi-omics Integration Model to Predict Neoadjuvant Therapy Response in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05997147 -
A Preoperative Model to Predict the Lymphovascular Invasion in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05929365 -
Innovative Approach to Detect Recurrent Colorectal Lesions With Surveillance Via Mutation Analysis & Clinical Phenotype
|
||
Active, not recruiting |
NCT05973331 -
Prospective Validation of an EHR-based Pancreatic Cancer Risk Model
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05338073 -
KM3D Multicenter Cancer Consortium: Predicting Patient Response Using 3D Cell Culture Models
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT06391892 -
Liquid Biopsy (ctDNA) Guided Treatment in Localized Pancreatic Cancer: Neoadjuvant CTX vs. Upfront Surgery
|
Phase 3 | |
Recruiting |
NCT06202404 -
Predicting Tumor Metastasis by Employing a Target Organ/Primary Lesion Fusion Radiomics Model
|
||
Completed |
NCT06411015 -
Prognostic Evaluation Prediction Model Survival Spinal Epidural Metastases
|
||
Completed |
NCT04079283 -
Radiomics of Immunotherapeutics Response Evaluation and Prediction
|
||
Completed |
NCT06092918 -
Generation and Validation of Predictive Models for Localized Prostate Cancer Treated With External Radiotherapy.
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT06339307 -
A Prospective Clinical Study to Validate a Preoperative Risk Scoring Model for LNM in GC Patients
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT04185779 -
COLO-COHORT (Colorectal Cancer Cohort) Study
|
||
Active, not recruiting |
NCT06074029 -
Exploratory Study on the Therapeutic Effect Prediction Model of Advanced BTC Immunotherapy
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04452058 -
CT-based Radiomic Algorithm for Assisting Surgery Decision and Predicting Immunotherapy Response of NSCLC
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT04511481 -
Deep Learning Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomic Predict Platinum-sensitive in Patients With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
|
||
Active, not recruiting |
NCT06140823 -
Prospective Validation of Liver Cancer Risk Computation (LIRIC) Models
|