Virtual Reality in Imaging Review for Cancer Patients

Virtual Reality Clinical Trial

Official title:

The Use of Virtual Reality for Diagnostic Imaging Review With Cancer Patients

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Withdrawn

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04469478
• Other study ID #: 20-0560.cc
• Status: Withdrawn
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: July 15, 2020
• Est. completion date: June 30, 2021

Study information

• Verified date: November 2021
• Source: University of Colorado, Denver
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Patients with cancer and their caregivers may have difficulty understanding the site and extent of their disease. Poor comprehension may negatively impact patients and caregivers, leading to increased anxiety, reduced compliance, decreased trust of the physician, and limited shared medical decision making ability. Most patients want to be thoroughly informed, with over a third of cancer patients wishing they had been better informed about side effects that they experienced due to their treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of diagnostic imaging review using 3D virtual reality compared to standard 2D imaging review for patients and their caregiver(s) using a mixed methods approach of survey and qualitative interview based approaches.

Description:

This study will use virtual reality to display the patient's diagnostic imaging in 3D with live volumetric rendering. This study will explore if this approach improves patient and caregiver understanding of their disease. Eligible patients should have available diagnostic imaging consisting of CT, MRI, and/or PET-CT. Prior to their consultation in radiation oncology, patients will complete a survey about their prior experience reviewing their diagnostic imaging. During the consultation, patients and caregivers will be shown their medical imaging in 2D on a computer screen, then in 3D with virtual reality. After the consultation, the patient and caregiver(s) will complete a 2nd survey comparing virtual reality to standard imaging review with domains of perceived understanding, patient preference, and satisfaction. Then, the patient and caregiver(s) will undergo a qualitative interview exploring their experience with virtual reality compared to standard imaging review. The survey questions comparing virtual reality to standard imaging review will be statistically evaluated. The recorded interview session will be qualitatively analyzed using with a mixed methods approach by thematically categorizing the respondents' answers.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Withdrawn
• Enrollment: 0
• Est. completion date: June 30, 2021
• Est. primary completion date: June 30, 2021
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Willingness to sign and date the consent form.
• Willingness to comply with all study procedures and be available for the duration of the study.
• Male or female patient 18 years or older.
• Available diagnostic imaging (MRI, CT and/or PET)
• Consultation in radiation oncology for consideration of radiation therapy.
• English speaking.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Inability to complete virtual reality, survey and interview.
• Non-English speaking
• Patients with visual defects that affect their ability to view content in VR

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Cancer Patient
• Diagnostic Imaging
• Patient Education
• Virtual Reality

Intervention

Other:
• Survey and interview
Patients and caregivers will provide information via surveys and interviews regarding their experience viewing diagnostic imaging using conventional methods and using Virtual Reality

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	University of Colorado, Anschutz Cancer Center	Aurora	Colorado

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
University of Colorado, Denver	Colorado State University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (10)

Fernsler JI, Cannon CA. The whys of patient education. Semin Oncol Nurs. 1991 May;7(2):79-86. — View Citation

Friedman AJ, Cosby R, Boyko S, Hatton-Bauer J, Turnbull G. Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: a systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. J Cancer Educ. 2011 Mar;26(1):12-21. doi: 10.1007/s13187-010-0183-x. Review. — View Citation

Gold DT, McClung B. Approaches to patient education: emphasizing the long-term value of compliance and persistence. Am J Med. 2006 Apr;119(4 Suppl 1):S32-7. Review. — View Citation

Hess CB, Chen AM. Measuring psychosocial functioning in the radiation oncology clinic: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2014 Aug;23(8):841-54. doi: 10.1002/pon.3521. Epub 2014 May 21. Review. — View Citation

Johnson A, Sandford J. Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home: systematic review. Health Educ Res. 2005 Aug;20(4):423-9. Epub 2004 Nov 30. Review. — View Citation

Meredith C, Symonds P, Webster L, Lamont D, Pyper E, Gillis CR, Fallowfield L. Information needs of cancer patients in west Scotland: cross sectional survey of patients' views. BMJ. 1996 Sep 21;313(7059):724-6. — View Citation

Press Ganey: public reporting gives huge boost to patient satisfaction. Healthcare Benchmarks Qual Improv. 2008 Dec;15(12):121-3. — View Citation

Shaverdian N, Yeboa DN, Gardner L, Harari PM, Liao K, McCloskey S, Tuli R, Vapiwala N, Jagsi R. Nationwide Survey of Patients' Perspectives Regarding Their Radiation and Multidisciplinary Cancer Treatment Experiences. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Dec;15(12):e1010-e1017. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00376. Epub 2019 Nov 20. — View Citation

Takahashi T, Hondo M, Nishimura K, Kitani A, Yamano T, Yanagita H, Osada H, Shinbo M, Honda N. Evaluation of quality of life and psychological response in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Radiat Med. 2008 Aug;26(7):396-401. doi: 10.1007/s11604-008-0248-5. Epub 2008 Sep 4. — View Citation

Theis SL, Johnson JH. Strategies for teaching patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Nurse Spec. 1995 Mar;9(2):100-5, 120. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Successful Completion of Imaging Review Using Virtual Reality	The percentage of patients able to complete the review of their imaging using virtual reality	During the consultation 1 day visit
Secondary	Satisfaction and preference	Evaluate patients' and caregivers' satisfaction and preferences regarding diagnostic imaging review using a focused survey	During the consultation 1 day visit
Secondary	Qualitative feedback regarding imaging review using virtual reality	Collect patients' and caregivers' feedback regarding imaging review using virtual reality through qualitative interviews.	During the consultation 1 day visit
Secondary	Baseline demographics and imaging review experience	Capture baseline demographics, education, and prior experience with diagnostic imaging review.	During the consultation 1 day visit
Secondary	Intervention time interval	Measure the time spent reviewing diagnostic imaging with virtual reality and standard approaches relative to the consultation time	During the consultation 1 day visit