Colonic NeoplasmsPERFECTSNCT02892721
Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening
A study testing Training with feedback in people with Colonic Neoplasms and Colorectal Neoplasms, run by London North West Healthcare NHS Trust at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important United Kingdom healthcare issue affecting 1 in 20 individuals, half of whom will die from the disease. Late presentation of CRC has a poor prognosis, whereas excellent cure rates (>95%) are seen in those who present early. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Colonic Neoplasms, Colorectal Neoplasms
- What is being tested?
- Training with feedback
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 139 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 20 Apr 2017to 31 Mar 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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 Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- National Health Service (NHS) Consultant Radiologists or final year Registrars or Fellows in the England or Wales who currently routinely report CT colonography scans.
Who cannot join
- Radiologists who do not routinely report CT colonography scans.
- This study is limited to NHS staff and does not involve any patients.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important United Kingdom healthcare issue affecting 1 in 20 individuals, half of whom will die from the disease. Late presentation of CRC has a poor prognosis, whereas excellent cure rates (>95%) are seen in those who present early. Accurate and early diagnosis of CRC is therefore crucial. In most patients this is achieved via colonoscopy, a camera test which is widely available and allows tissue samples to be taken of any abnormalities seen during the procedure. However, a non-invasive alternative is Computed Tomography Colonography (CTC) which uses X-rays to produce images of the large bowel which are then interpreted by Radiologists. CTC has high sensitivity for the diagnosis of CRC (comparable to colonoscopy) and the cancer precursor - adenomatous polyps.
Unlike colonoscopy, however, there is no accreditation process for CTC and there is no infrastructure to ensure that all reporting Radiologists are able to do so adequately and, as a result, there is a wide range of diagnostic accuracy. There are no universally-accepted standards to monitor quality or assess diagnostic performance, partly because we do not know what the quality markers are and there is currently no system to quantify them. Overall, this contributes to low cancer detection rates, missed cancers and inequity for patients across the National Health Service (NHS).
This study aims to assess the impact of a structured training programme with assessment and feedback on NHS radiologist performance. If the impact is positive and results in significantly improved performance, then such a scheme could be adopted into an accreditation programme for CTC in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP).
Read the detailed description
CT Colonography is a test which can can detect early cancer accurately, however, unlike colonoscopy (or mammography in breast cancer screening) there is currently no formalised program to help ensure Radiologists interpret CTC accurately. Colonoscopists are highly regulated, must be accredited and have ongoing quality assurance metrics, based on evidence linking these to clinical outcomes. Conversely, for CTC in the United Kingdom, there is no accreditation process, little regulatory oversight and no universally-accepted metrics to monitor quality or diagnostic performance.
Radiologists who interpret CTC images are often inexperienced; one-third have interpreted <300 cases in total and 20% report <100 cases per annum (the minimum recommendation). Futhermore, in clinical practice across the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHS BCSP) CTC may have up to a 50% lower cancer and polyp detection rate than colonoscopy. Missed abnormalities at CTC are likely to underpin this difference, as centres with highly experienced radiologists (>1000 cases) using 3-dimensional interpretation have significantly higher detection rates.
There is a Quality Assurance (QA) framework for the NHS BCSP (with an overseeing QA Committee for Radiology) but recommendations are largely based on opinion rather than evidence and any radiologist can report CTC, without accreditation; a fact which our patient representatives find extremely disappointing.
Prior to wide-scale implementation of a possible accreditation programme and to justify both financial and human resource, Public Health England and the British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiologists have mandated that such a program is scientifically proven to improve Radiologist performance. Consequently, this project will investigate training and assessment methods to improve diagnostic accuracy and elucidate the factors associated with higher Radiologist sensitivity.
- Conditions
- Colonic Neoplasms, Colorectal Neoplasms
- Being tested
- Training with feedback
- Keywords
- CT Colonography, Virtual colonoscopy, Colorectal cancer, Colon cancer, Training
- Medical subject headings
- Colonic Neoplasms, Colorectal Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Training with feedbackOther
One-day workshop of face to face training, comprising a mixture of theory and real-world CTC cases. Radiologists will complete four interpretation assessments lasting 2 to 3 hours: one set of 10 CTC cases immediately prior to training and a further test set of 10 immediately after, with tests repeated at 6 and 12 months (using different CTC cases for each set). Radiologists will be asked to identify colorectal cancer and polyps on the scans and complete an online answer form, including questions regarding diagnostic confidence, site of abnormality and management.
The intervention group will receive online, confidential, individualised feedback after each test, which will include a case by case breakdown of their performance with explanatory answers and learning points.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | The control group will not receive the one-day training course or access to the online educational module. Test sets will be administered in the same manner as for the intervention group, but the control group will not receive any feedback on performance during the 12 month assessment phase. Feedback on test performance will only be provided after the 12 month period has ended. |
| Training with feedback | Other | See intervention description Receives: Other: Training with feedback |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Difference in sensitivity between arms
Difference in sensitivity between intervention and control groups for detection of colorectal cancer / polyps on CT colonography at the 1 month post-intervention test.
Measured: One month after intervention
Secondary outcomes (8)
Difference in sensitivity between intervention and controls for colorectal cancer/ polyps at the 12 month post-training test set (i.e. to test longer-term durability of one-off training supplemented by individualized feedback).
Measured: Twelve months after intervention
Difference in specificity between intervention and controls at 1 month.
Measured: One month after intervention
Difference in specificity between intervention and controls at 12 months.
Measured: Twelve months after intervention
Difference in sensitivity between intervention and controls at 6 months.
Measured: Six months after intervention
Difference in specificity between intervention and controls at 6 months.
Measured: Six months after intervention
Difference in raw score between the control and intervention arms on the knowledge questions as compared to true answers.
Measured: 1 month after intervention
Association between interpretation time and diagnostic performance of radiologists on all test sets.
Measured: 12 months after intervention and after final test set.
Characteristics of radiologists performing well versus those that do not.
Measured: After the final test set at 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Sep 2016 (estimated)
- Study start20 Apr 2017
- Primary completion31 Dec 2019
- Study completion31 Mar 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Colonic NeoplasmsStudies 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
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 139 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- London North West Healthcare NHS Trust
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University College London Hospitals
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Andrew Plumb, FRCR, Study director, University College London Hospitals
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02892721
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- RD16/055
- Acronym
- PERFECTS
- Status last verified
- Aug 2019
- First submitted
- 2 Sep 2016
- Last updated
- 10 Sep 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Anonymised participant data will be included in the research analysis.
Publications
Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection--systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2011 May;259(2):393-405. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101887. Epub 2011 Mar 17.
PubMed 21415247Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, Wong RK, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, Schindler WR. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 4;349(23):2191-200. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031618. Epub 2003 Dec 1.
PubMed 14657426Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, Heiken JP, Dachman A, Kuo MD, Menias CO, Siewert B, Cheema JI, Obregon RG, Fidler JL, Zimmerman P, Horton KM, Coakley K, Iyer RB, Hara AK, Halvorsen RA Jr, Casola G, Yee J, Herman BA, Burgart LJ, Limburg PJ. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 18;359(12):1207-17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0800996.
PubMed 18799557Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C, Edwards R, Yao G, Kay C, Burling D, Faiz O, Teare J, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J, Halligan S; SIGGAR investigators. Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2013 Apr 6;381(9873):1194-202. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62186-2. Epub 2013 Feb 14.
PubMed 23414650Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, van Ballegooijen M, Nio CY, van de Vijver MJ, Biermann K, Thomeer M, van Leerdam ME, Fockens P, Stoker J, Kuipers EJ, Dekker E. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jan;13(1):55-64. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70283-2. Epub 2011 Nov 15.
PubMed 22088831Plumb AA, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Burling D, Nickerson C, Patnick J. CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: national survey of current practice. Clin Radiol. 2013 May;68(5):479-87. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.10.018. Epub 2012 Dec 11.
PubMed 23245277Plumb AA, Halligan S, Nickerson C, Bassett P, Goddard AF, Taylor SA, Patnick J, Burling D. Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut. 2014 Jun;63(6):964-73. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304697. Epub 2013 Aug 16.
PubMed 23955527McCoubrie P. Metrics in medical education. Ulster Med J. 2010 May;79(2):52-6.
PubMed 21116419Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S, Taylor SA, Burling D, Roddie M, Honeyfield L, McQuillan J, Amin H, Dehmeshki J. Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology. 2006 Dec;131(6):1690-9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.09.051. Epub 2006 Oct 1.
PubMed 17087934Obaro AE, Plumb AA, Halligan S, Mallett S, Bassett P, McCoubrie P, Baldwin-Cleland R, Ugarte-Cano C, Lung P, Muckian J, Ilangovan R, Gupta A, Robinson C, Higginson A, Britton I, Greenhalgh R, Patel U, Mainta E, Gangi A, Taylor SA, Burling D. Colorectal Cancer: Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening- A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial. Radiology. 2022 May;303(2):361-370. doi: 10.1148/radiol.211456. Epub 2022 Feb 15.
PubMed 35166585
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Sep 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02892721
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PERFECTS / RD16/055
- Conditions
- Colonic Neoplasms, Colorectal Neoplasms
- Keywords
- CT Colonography, Virtual colonoscopy, Colorectal cancer, Colon cancer, Training
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 139 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- London North West Healthcare NHS TrustUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University College London Hospitals
- Study start
- 20 Apr 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Mar 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Sep 2016 (estimated)
- 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.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important United Kingdom healthcare issue affecting 1 in 20 individuals, half of whom will die from the disease. Late presentation of CRC has a poor prognosis, whereas excellent cure rates (>95%) are seen in those who present early. Accurate and early diagnosis of CRC is therefore crucial. In most patients this is achieved via colonoscopy, a camera test which is widely available and allows tissue samples to be taken of any abnormalities seen during the procedure. However, a non-invasive alternative is Computed Tomography Colonography (CTC) which uses X-rays to produce images of the large bowel which are then interpreted by Radiologists. CTC has high sensitivity for the diagnosis of CRC (comparable to colonoscopy) and the cancer precursor - adenomatous polyps.
Unlike colonoscopy, however, there is no accreditation process for CTC and there is no infrastructure to ensure that all reporting Radiologists are able to do so adequately and, as a result, there is a wide range of diagnostic accuracy. There are no universally-accepted standards to monitor quality or assess diagnostic performance, partly because we do not know what the quality markers are and there is currently no system to quantify them. Overall, this contributes to low cancer detection rates, missed cancers and inequity for patients across the National Health Service (NHS).
This study aims to assess the impact of a structured training programme with assessment and feedback on NHS radiologist performance. If the impact is positive and results in significantly improved performance, then such a scheme could be adopted into an accreditation programme for CTC in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP).
Detailed description
CT Colonography is a test which can can detect early cancer accurately, however, unlike colonoscopy (or mammography in breast cancer screening) there is currently no formalised program to help ensure Radiologists interpret CTC accurately. Colonoscopists are highly regulated, must be accredited and have ongoing quality assurance metrics, based on evidence linking these to clinical outcomes. Conversely, for CTC in the United Kingdom, there is no accreditation process, little regulatory oversight and no universally-accepted metrics to monitor quality or diagnostic performance.
Radiologists who interpret CTC images are often inexperienced; one-third have interpreted <300 cases in total and 20% report <100 cases per annum (the minimum recommendation). Futhermore, in clinical practice across the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHS BCSP) CTC may have up to a 50% lower cancer and polyp detection rate than colonoscopy. Missed abnormalities at CTC are likely to underpin this difference, as centres with highly experienced radiologists (>1000 cases) using 3-dimensional interpretation have significantly higher detection rates.
There is a Quality Assurance (QA) framework for the NHS BCSP (with an overseeing QA Committee for Radiology) but recommendations are largely based on opinion rather than evidence and any radiologist can report CTC, without accreditation; a fact which our patient representatives find extremely disappointing.
Prior to wide-scale implementation of a possible accreditation programme and to justify both financial and human resource, Public Health England and the British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiologists have mandated that such a program is scientifically proven to improve Radiologist performance. Consequently, this project will investigate training and assessment methods to improve diagnostic accuracy and elucidate the factors associated with higher Radiologist sensitivity.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | –The control group will not receive the one-day training course or access to the online educational module. Test sets will be administered in the same manner as for the intervention group, but the control group will not receive any feedback on performance during the 12 month assessment phase. Feedback on test performance will only be provided after the 12 month period has ended. |
| Training with feedback | Other | Other: Training with feedbackSee intervention description |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- National Health Service (NHS) Consultant Radiologists or final year Registrars or Fellows in the England or Wales who currently routinely report CT colonography scans.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Radiologists who do not routinely report CT colonography scans.
- This study is limited to NHS staff and does not involve any patients.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Training with feedbackOne-day workshop of face to face training, comprising a mixture of theory and real-world CTC cases. Radiologists will complete four interpretation assessments lasting 2 to 3 hours: one set of 10 CTC cases immediately prior to training and a further test set of 10 immediately after, with tests repeated at 6 and 12 months (using different CTC cases for each set). Radiologists will be asked to identify colorectal cancer and polyps on the scans and complete an online answer form, including questions regarding diagnostic confidence, site of abnormality and management. The intervention group will receive online, confidential, individualised feedback after each test, which will include a case by case breakdown of their performance with explanatory answers and learning points. | Other | Training with feedback |
Primary outcome
Difference in sensitivity between arms
Time frame: One month after intervention
Difference in sensitivity between intervention and control groups for detection of colorectal cancer / polyps on CT colonography at the 1 month post-intervention test.
8 secondary outcomes
Difference in sensitivity between intervention and controls for colorectal cancer/ polyps at the 12 month post-training test set (i.e. to test longer-term durability of one-off training supplemented by individualized feedback).
Time frame: Twelve months after intervention
Difference in specificity between intervention and controls at 1 month.
Time frame: One month after intervention
Difference in specificity between intervention and controls at 12 months.
Time frame: Twelve months after intervention
Difference in sensitivity between intervention and controls at 6 months.
Time frame: Six months after intervention
Difference in specificity between intervention and controls at 6 months.
Time frame: Six months after intervention
Difference in raw score between the control and intervention arms on the knowledge questions as compared to true answers.
Time frame: 1 month after intervention
Association between interpretation time and diagnostic performance of radiologists on all test sets.
Time frame: 12 months after intervention and after final test set.
Characteristics of radiologists performing well versus those that do not.
Time frame: After the final test set at 12 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Sep 2020.
- Background: PubMed 21415247Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection--systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2011 May;259(2):393-405. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101887. Epub 2011 Mar 17.
- Background: PubMed 14657426Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, Wong RK, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, Schindler WR. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 4;349(23):2191-200. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031618. Epub 2003 Dec 1.
- Background: PubMed 18799557Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, Heiken JP, Dachman A, Kuo MD, Menias CO, Siewert B, Cheema JI, Obregon RG, Fidler JL, Zimmerman P, Horton KM, Coakley K, Iyer RB, Hara AK, Halvorsen RA Jr, Casola G, Yee J, Herman BA, Burgart LJ, Limburg PJ. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 18;359(12):1207-17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0800996.
- Background: PubMed 23414650Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C, Edwards R, Yao G, Kay C, Burling D, Faiz O, Teare J, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J, Halligan S; SIGGAR investigators. Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2013 Apr 6;381(9873):1194-202. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62186-2. Epub 2013 Feb 14.
- Background: PubMed 22088831Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, van Ballegooijen M, Nio CY, van de Vijver MJ, Biermann K, Thomeer M, van Leerdam ME, Fockens P, Stoker J, Kuipers EJ, Dekker E. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jan;13(1):55-64. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70283-2. Epub 2011 Nov 15.
- Background: PubMed 23245277Plumb AA, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Burling D, Nickerson C, Patnick J. CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: national survey of current practice. Clin Radiol. 2013 May;68(5):479-87. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.10.018. Epub 2012 Dec 11.
- Background: PubMed 23955527Plumb AA, Halligan S, Nickerson C, Bassett P, Goddard AF, Taylor SA, Patnick J, Burling D. Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut. 2014 Jun;63(6):964-73. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304697. Epub 2013 Aug 16.
- Background: PubMed 21116419McCoubrie P. Metrics in medical education. Ulster Med J. 2010 May;79(2):52-6.
- Background: PubMed 17087934Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S, Taylor SA, Burling D, Roddie M, Honeyfield L, McQuillan J, Amin H, Dehmeshki J. Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology. 2006 Dec;131(6):1690-9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.09.051. Epub 2006 Oct 1.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 35166585Obaro AE, Plumb AA, Halligan S, Mallett S, Bassett P, McCoubrie P, Baldwin-Cleland R, Ugarte-Cano C, Lung P, Muckian J, Ilangovan R, Gupta A, Robinson C, Higginson A, Britton I, Greenhalgh R, Patel U, Mainta E, Gangi A, Taylor SA, Burling D. Colorectal Cancer: Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening- A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial. Radiology. 2022 May;303(2):361-370. doi: 10.1148/radiol.211456. Epub 2022 Feb 15.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Anonymised participant data will be included in the research analysis.
Related trials for Colonic Neoplasms
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Hepatic Artery Infusion of Carfilzomib in Participants With Liver Metastatic Disease Previously Treated With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms, Neoplasms
RecruitingObservational study
Obtaining Solid Tumor Tissue From People Having Biopsy or Surgery for Certain Types of Cancer
Colorectal Neoplasms, Gastric Neoplasms
RecruitingPhase 1
A Study of LY4257496 in Participants With Cancer (OMNIRAY)
Breast Neoplasms, Colorectal Neoplasms
RecruitingPhase 1
A Study to Learn About Study Medicine ALTA3263 in Adults With Advanced Solid Tumors With KRAS Mutations
Cancer, PDAC - Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
RecruitingObservational study
Biopsy-Resection Agreement of Peritoneal Histopathological Growth Patterns in Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Prospective Observational Pilot Study
Peritoneal (Metastatic) Cancer, Colorectal 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. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Andrew Plumb, FRCR study director
University College London Hospitals
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Training with feedback in people with Colonic Neoplasms and Colorectal Neoplasms, run by London North West Healthcare NHS Trust at 1 site in United Kingdom.
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 1 inclusion and 2 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Sep 2020. 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 Kingdom. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Difference in sensitivity between arms (time frame: One month after intervention). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02892721, which also lists 10 linked publications.
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 10 Sep 2020.