ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT04515810Updated Aug 17, 2026

Mobile Health Application (PACT) to Improve Engagement in Advance Care Planning

An interventional study of Internet-Based Intervention and Best Practice in Locally Advanced Malignant Solid Neoplasm, Metastatic Malignant Solid Neoplasm and Recurrent Hematologic Malignancy, sponsored by Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. Recruiting at 4 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-17.

Sponsored by Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Feb 2025; still recruiting 1 year 8 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
400
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This clinical trial tests a new mobile health application (app) called Planning Advance Care Together (PACT) to help people with cancer talk about and plan for advance care planning (the care they would want if they were unable to communicate) with their loved ones and doctors. The development of the PACT mobile app may help future patients incorporate their social network (typically, but not exclusively, family) into the advance care planning process.

Read the detailed description

OUTLINE: Patients and support persons are randomized to 1 of 2 arms.

ARM I: Participants use PACT mHealth app for up to 4 weeks and receive one check-in call on study.

ARM II: Participants engage in standard care with no modifications for up to 4 weeks.

After completion of study intervention, participants are followed up at 3 and 6 months.

02

Conditions studied

  • Locally Advanced Malignant Solid Neoplasm
  • Metastatic Malignant Solid Neoplasm
  • Recurrent Hematologic Malignancy
  • Refractory Hematologic Malignancy

Keywords

  • Advance Care Planning
  • Advance Directives
  • End-of-Life
  • Cancer
03

In context

Neoplasm Metastasis

4,040 studies on the registry are indexed under Neoplasm Metastasis; 886 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 400 is above the median of 50 across 3,268 interventional studies indexed under Neoplasm Metastasis.

Browse Neoplasm Metastasis studies →

Lead sponsor

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center is the lead sponsor of 547 studies on the registry; 80 are open to participants now.

Of its 59 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 46 (78%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • PATIENT: Diagnosis of poor prognosis advanced cancer defined as locally advanced or solid cancer and/or disease progression following at least systemic therapy and/or hematologic cancer.
  • PATIENT: Have internet access through a computer or a mobile device; the principal investigator (PI) will ensure that those who have access to a computer or mobile device have access to a computer or mobile device with internet access to ensure they can complete study procedures.
  • PATIENT: The ability to provide .
  • PATIENT: Identification of a loved support person if one is available; patients who are unable to identify a support person willing to participate with them will be allowed to continue in the study on their own.
  • PATIENT: 18 years of age or older.
  • SUPPORT PERSON: The person (family member or friend) whom the patient indicates being a support person.
  • SUPPORT PERSON: English speaking.
  • SUPPORT PERSON: 18 years of age or older and able to provide informed consent.
  • PROVIDER: Current clinical practice and/or research with advanced cancer patients.
  • PROVIDER: A history of 3+ years working with advanced cancer patients.
  • PROVIDER: 18 years of age or older. Providers across disciplines (e.g., social work, oncology) will be enrolled.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • PATIENT: Not fluent in English.
  • PATIENT: Severely cognitively impaired (as measured by Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire scores of >= 6) to be delivered by trained study research staff during screening.
  • PATIENT: Too ill or weak to complete the interviews (as judged by the interviewer).
  • PATIENT: Currently receiving hospice at the time of enrollment.
  • PATIENT: Children and young adults under age 18.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(4)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Metastases

Cancer that has spread from where it began to other parts of the body. “Metastatic” cancer is cancer that has spread this way.

Line of therapy

A line of therapy is one course of treatment, which may combine several drugs. First-line is the first course given; second-line follows when that stops working or is not tolerated.

“Two prior lines” means two courses that count separately under the study’s rules — not simply two drugs. Ask the study team if you are unsure how yours are counted.

Relapsed and refractory

Relapsed: the illness came back after treatment had worked. Refractory: it did not respond to treatment, or stopped responding while still on it.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
400 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Arm I (PACT)

    Participants use PACT mHealth app for up to 4 weeks and receive one check-in call on study.

    Other: Internet-Based Intervention · Other: Telephone-Based Intervention · Other: Questionnaire Administration · Other: Post-intervention qualitative feedback interview

  • Active comparator
    Arm II (standard care)

    Participants engage in standard care with no modifications for up to 4 weeks.

    Other: Best Practice · Other: Questionnaire Administration

Interventions

  • OtherInternet-Based Intervention

    Use smartphone application

  • OtherBest Practice

    Engage in standard care

    Also known as: standard of care, standard therapy

  • OtherTelephone-Based Intervention

    Receive check-in call

  • OtherQuestionnaire Administration

    Ancillary studies

  • OtherPost-intervention qualitative feedback interview

    Post-intervention qualitative feedback interview (with a subset of patients and support persons)

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Feasibility: Accrual rates [Patients]

    Will assess the percentage of eligible approached patients who consent to enroll in the study

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  2. Feasibility: Accrual rates [Support persons]

    Will assess the percentage of eligible approached support persons who consent to enroll in the study

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  3. Feasibility: Rates of intervention completion [Patients]

    Will assess the percentage of enrolled patients who complete the intervention

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  4. Feasibility: Rates of intervention completion [Support persons]

    Will assess the percentage of enrolled support persons who complete the intervention

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  5. Acceptability of the PACT application: Acceptability E-Scale [Patients]

    The Acceptability E-Scale is a 6-item scale, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., 1=very difficult; 5= very easy), with previously demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=.76), with higher values indicating higher levels of acceptability.

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  6. Acceptability of the PACT application: Acceptability E-Scale [Support persons]

    The Acceptability E-Scale is a 6-item scale, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., 1=very difficult; 5= very easy), with previously demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=.76), with higher values indicating higher levels of acceptability.

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  7. Usability of the PACT application: System Usability Scale (SUS) [Patients]

    Usability of the PACT application will be assessed among patients using the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS is a 10-item scale, scored on a 5-point Lilkert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), with higher values indicating higher levels of usability

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  8. Usability of the PACT application: System Usability Scale (SUS) [Support persons]

    Usability of the PACT application will be assessed among support persons using the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS is a 10-item scale, scored on a 5-point Lilkert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), with higher values indicating higher levels of usability

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  9. User satisfaction [Patients]

    User satisfaction: Patients will engage in an exit interview that assesses their overall satisfaction with the app on a Likert scale ranging from 1-10 (1=not at all satisfied; 10 = extremely satisfied), with higher values indicating higher levels of satisfaction

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  10. User satisfaction [Support persons]

    User satisfaction: Support persons will engage in an exit interview that assesses their overall satisfaction with the app on a Likert scale ranging from 1-10 (1=not at all satisfied; 10 = extremely satisfied), with higher values indicating higher levels of satisfaction

    Time frame: At 3 months post-randomization

  11. User engagement as measured by number of views [Patients]

    User engagement will be assessed through tracking of activity (i.e., number of views) over a 3-month period following randomization.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-intervention

  12. User engagement as measured by number of views [Support persons]

    User engagement will be assessed through tracking of activity (i.e., number of views) over a 3-month period following randomization.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-intervention

  13. User engagement as measured by time spent on app [Patients]

    User engagement will be assessed through tracking of activity (i.e., time spent on app) over a 3-month period following randomization.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-intervention

  14. User engagement as measured by time spent on app [Support persons]

    User engagement will be assessed through tracking of activity (i.e., time spent on app) over a 3-month period following randomization.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-intervention

  15. Change in level of engagement in advance care planning [Patients]

    Patients will be assessed using the reliable and valid Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey: Action Measures. This scale is composed of four sub scales with a total of 18 items. All items are rated on a yes=1 and no=0. Scores can range from 0 (no action taken) to 18 (all actions taken).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-intervention

  16. Change in level of engagement in advance care planning [Patients]

    Patients will be assessed using the reliable and valid Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey: Action Measures. This scale is composed of four sub scales with a total of 18 items. All items are rated on a yes=1 and no=0. Scores can range from 0 (no action taken) to 18 (all actions taken).

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months post-intervention

  17. Change in level of engagement in advance care planning [Support persons]

    Support persons will be assessed using an adapted support person version of the reliable and valid Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey: Action Measures. This scale is composed of four sub scales with a total of 18 items. All items are rated on a yes=1 and no=0. Scores can range from 0 (no action taken) to 18 (all actions taken).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-intervention

  18. Change in level of engagement in advance care planning [Support persons]

    Support persons will be assessed using an adapted support person version of the reliable and valid Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey: Action Measures. This scale is composed of four sub scales with a total of 18 items. All items are rated on a yes=1 and no=0. Scores can range from 0 (no action taken) to 18 (all actions taken).

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months post-intervention

  19. Change in documentation of advance care planning conversations [Patients]

    This will be measured using our previously utilized 8-item measure of discussing EoL care, living will, HCP, and DNR orders with family and doctor (all yes/no questions).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-intervention

  20. Change in documentation of advance care planning conversations [Patients]

    This will be measured using our previously utilized 8-item measure of discussing EoL care, living will, HCP, and DNR orders with family and doctor (all yes/no questions).

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months post-intervention

  21. Change in documentation of advance care planning conversations [Support persons]

    This will be measured using our previously utilized 8-item measure of discussing EoL care, living will, HCP, and DNR orders with patient and patient's doctor) (all yes/no questions).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-intervention

  22. Change in documentation of advance care planning conversations [Support persons]

    This will be measured using our previously utilized 8-item measure of discussing EoL care, living will, HCP, and DNR orders with patient and patient's doctor) (all yes/no questions).

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months post-intervention

  23. Change in completion of advance directives

    This will be assessed by asking patients whether they have completed a Do Not Resuscitate order (DNR), living will, or identified a Health Care Proxy (HCP). All yes/no questions.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-intervention

  24. Change in completion of advance directives

    This will be assessed by asking patients whether they have completed a Do Not Resuscitate order (DNR), living will, or identified a Health Care Proxy (HCP). All yes/no questions.

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months post-intervention

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in treatment preference

    This will be assessed in patients with an item used previously in our team's NCI-funded cohort studies that asks patients to express a preference for life-extending versus comfort care (two answer choices).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

  2. Change in treatment preference

    This will be assessed in patients with an item used previously in our team's NCI-funded cohort studies that asks patients to express a preference for life-extending versus comfort care (two answer choices).

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months

  3. Change in healthcare utilization (summary score for total number of healthcare services utilized)

    This measure will assess patients' receipt of life-prolonging care (number of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, length of stay in the hospital, rates of ICU admission) and use of palliative or hospice care (length and duration of palliative and/or hospice care). A total score will be created for healthcare utilization.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

  4. Change in healthcare utilization (summary score for total number of healthcare services utilized)

    This measure will assess patients' receipt of life-prolonging care (number of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, length of stay in the hospital, rates of ICU admission) and use of palliative or hospice care (length and duration of palliative and/or hospice care). A total score will be created for healthcare utilization.

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months

  5. Change in number of subjects receiving goal-concordant care

    This will be determined by comparing patients' treatment preferences to treatment received. Patients matching on their desired and received care will be designated as having received goal-concordant care.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

  6. Change in number of subjects receiving goal-concordant care

    This will be determined by comparing patients' treatment preferences to treatment received. Patients matching on their desired and received care will be designated as having received goal-concordant care.

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months

  7. Change in perceived social support

    This will be assessed among patients and support persons using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). The MSPSS is a 12-item valid and reliable measure of social support from family, friends, and significant other, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), with previously reported excellent internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.84 to 0.92).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

  8. Change in perceived social support

    This will be assessed among patients and support persons using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). The MSPSS is a 12-item valid and reliable measure of social support from family, friends, and significant other, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), with previously reported excellent internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.84 to 0.92).

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months

  9. Change in family functioning

    This will be assessed among patients and support persons using the Family Relationship Index (FRI), a scale derived from the Family Environment Scale. FRI consists of 12 true/false items consisting of three subscales (cohesiveness, expressiveness, and conflict resolution) with scores ranging from 1 to 4 with higher scores indicating better family functioning. The FRI is well-validated in cancer patients.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

  10. Change in family functioning

    This will be assessed among patients and support persons using the Family Relationship Index (FRI), a scale derived from the Family Environment Scale. FRI consists of 12 true/false items consisting of three subscales (cohesiveness, expressiveness, and conflict resolution) with scores ranging from 1 to 4 with higher scores indicating better family functioning. The FRI is well-validated in cancer patients.

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months

07

Study locations

1 of 4 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Karnofsky DA. Determining the extent of the cancer and clinical planning for cure. Cancer. 1968 Oct;22(4):730-4. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(196810)22:43.0.co;2-h. PubMed 5212297 ↗
  • Tariman JD, Berry DL, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Schepp K. Validation and testing of the Acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. Appl Nurs Res. 2011 Feb;24(1):53-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2009.04.003. Epub 2009 Sep 18. PubMed 20974066 ↗
  • S. Summers and A. Watt,
  • Borsci S, Federici S, Lauriola M. On the dimensionality of the System Usability Scale: a test of alternative measurement models. Cogn Process. 2009 Aug;10(3):193-7. doi: 10.1007/s10339-009-0268-9. Epub 2009 Jun 30. PubMed 19565283 ↗
  • Sudore RL, Stewart AL, Knight SJ, McMahan RD, Feuz M, Miao Y, Barnes DE. Development and validation of a questionnaire to detect behavior change in multiple advance care planning behaviors. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 5;8(9):e72465. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072465. eCollection 2013. PubMed 24039772 ↗
  • Mack JW, Weeks JC, Wright AA, Block SD, Prigerson HG. End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 1;28(7):1203-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.4672. Epub 2010 Feb 1. PubMed 20124172 ↗
  • Zimet GD, Powell SS, Farley GK, Werkman S, Berkoff KA. Psychometric characteristics of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. J Pers Assess. 1990 Winter;55(3-4):610-7. doi: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674095. PubMed 2280326 ↗
  • Kissane DW, McKenzie M, McKenzie DP, Forbes A, O'Neill I, Bloch S. Psychosocial morbidity associated with patterns of family functioning in palliative care: baseline data from the Family Focused Grief Therapy controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2003 Sep;17(6):527-37. doi: 10.1191/0269216303pm808oa. PubMed 14526887 ↗
  • Edwards B, Clarke V. The validity of the family relationships index as a screening tool for psychological risk in families of cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2005 Jul;14(7):546-54. doi: 10.1002/pon.876. PubMed 15546124 ↗
  • Brinkman-Stoppelenburg A, Rietjens JA, van der Heide A. The effects of advance care planning on end-of-life care: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2014 Sep;28(8):1000-25. doi: 10.1177/0269216314526272. Epub 2014 Mar 20. PubMed 24651708 ↗
  • Garrido MM, Balboni TA, Maciejewski PK, Bao Y, Prigerson HG. Quality of Life and Cost of Care at the End of Life: The Role of Advance Directives. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 May;49(5):828-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.09.015. Epub 2014 Dec 11. PubMed 25498855 ↗
  • Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c1345. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1345. PubMed 20332506 ↗
  • Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A, Mack JW, Trice E, Balboni T, Mitchell SL, Jackson VA, Block SD, Maciejewski PK, Prigerson HG. Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA. 2008 Oct 8;300(14):1665-73. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.14.1665. PubMed 18840840 ↗
  • Garrido MM, Harrington ST, Prigerson HG. End-of-life treatment preferences: a key to reducing ethnic/racial disparities in advance care planning? Cancer. 2014 Dec 15;120(24):3981-6. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28970. Epub 2014 Aug 21. PubMed 25145489 ↗
  • Dow LA, Matsuyama RK, Ramakrishnan V, Kuhn L, Lamont EB, Lyckholm L, Smith TJ. Paradoxes in advance care planning: the complex relationship of oncology patients, their physicians, and advance medical directives. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):299-304. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.6397. Epub 2009 Nov 23. PubMed 19933909 ↗
  • Johnson S, Butow P, Kerridge I, Tattersall M. Advance care planning for cancer patients: a systematic review of perceptions and experiences of patients, families, and healthcare providers. Psychooncology. 2016 Apr;25(4):362-86. doi: 10.1002/pon.3926. Epub 2015 Sep 20. PubMed 26387480 ↗
  • Singer PA, Martin DK, Lavery JV, Thiel EC, Kelner M, Mendelssohn DC. Reconceptualizing advance care planning from the patient's perspective. Arch Intern Med. 1998 Apr 27;158(8):879-84. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.8.879. PubMed 9570174 ↗
  • Houben CHM, Spruit MA, Groenen MTJ, Wouters EFM, Janssen DJA. Efficacy of advance care planning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Jul;15(7):477-489. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.01.008. Epub 2014 Mar 2. PubMed 24598477 ↗
  • Schobel M, Rieskamp J, Huber R. Social Influences in Sequential Decision Making. PLoS One. 2016 Jan 19;11(1):e0146536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146536. eCollection 2016. PubMed 26784448 ↗
  • Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975 Oct;23(10):433-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1975.tb00927.x. PubMed 1159263 ↗
  • Bernard H. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, MD: AltaMira; 2005
  • Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. Epub 2017 Sep 14. PubMed 29937585 ↗
  • Sandelowski M. What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010 Feb;33(1):77-84. doi: 10.1002/nur.20362. PubMed 20014004 ↗
  • Sullivan-Bolyai S, Bova C, Harper D. Developing and refining interventions in persons with health disparities: the use of qualitative description. Nurs Outlook. 2005 May-Jun;53(3):127-33. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2005.03.005. PubMed 15988449 ↗
  • Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies. 2009;4(3):114-123.
  • Brooke J. SUS: A Retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies. 2013;8(2):29-40.
  • Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, Cheng J, Ismaila A, Rios LP, Robson R, Thabane M, Giangregorio L, Goldsmith CH. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jan 6;10:1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-1. PubMed 20053272 ↗
  • Badr H, Smith CB, Goldstein NE, Gomez JE, Redd WH. Dyadic psychosocial intervention for advanced lung cancer patients and their family caregivers: results of a randomized pilot trial. Cancer. 2015 Jan 1;121(1):150-8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29009. Epub 2014 Sep 10. PubMed 25209975 ↗
  • Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology. 1982;13:290-312.
  • Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Dec;51(6):1173-82. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173. PubMed 3806354 ↗
  • Muller D, Judd CM, Yzerbyt VY. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Dec;89(6):852-63. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852. PubMed 16393020 ↗
  • Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behav Res. 2007 Jan-Mar;42(1):185-227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316. PubMed 26821081 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Feb 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for May 2027, 27 months after the start.

Of 291 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Neoplasm Metastasis, half reached primary completion within 58 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 28 and three quarters within 93. This study's planned 27 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 316 studies reached it within 54 months; a quarter within 28 and three quarters within 91.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Aug 12, 2020
First posted
Aug 17, 2020
StartActual
Feb 18, 2025
Primary completionEst.
May 31, 2027
CompletionEst.
Aug 31, 2027
Last update
Aug 17, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 17, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04515810
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 17, 2020
Start date
Feb 18, 2025
Primary completion
May 31, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Aug 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 17, 2026

Study contacts

Claudia De Los Santos, B.S.
Contact
cdelossa@fredhutch.org
206-667-1565
Megan Shen, PhD
Contact
mshen2@fredhutch.org
206-667-4172
Megan J Shen, PhD
principal investigator · Fred Hutch/University of Washington Cancer Consortium

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion