Skip to content

MEND 2: Making Treatment Decisions Using Genomic Testing

MEND 2: Making Treatment Decisions Using Genomic Testing

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03183050
Acronym
MEND2
Enrollment
88
Registered
2017-06-09
Start date
2017-06-02
Completion date
2019-01-14
Last updated
2025-04-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Breast Cancer Female

Brief summary

Clinical guidelines for women with early stage breast cancer integrate genomic tumor profiling tests such as the Oncotype DX Recurrence Score to refine recurrence estimates and systemic therapy selection when combined with existing markers. Guidelines suggest that the 25% with a high Score benefit from chemotherapy and the 50% with a low Score can safely avoid chemotherapy. Many challenges remain to maximize the benefits of testing prior to release of trial results in the next year. Strong clinical communication can impact proximal outcomes of patient comprehension, treatment preferences and satisfaction, involvement in care decisions as well as longer-term outcomes of treatment adherence and QOL. These proximal outcomes can be influenced by patient activation interventions utilizing a question prompt list (QPL). In the context of patients receiving Oncotype DX testing, the QPL could allow them to better understand the rationale for their oncologist's treatment recommendation, what it means for managing their disease, and encourage alignment of treatment preferences and selection with the Recurrence Score. Research is conducted in two phases to test the feasibility and impact of the QPL. In Phase 1, the draft QPL will be revised based on in-depth interviews with patients (N=20) and medical oncologists (N=10). Phase 2 will be a single-arm trial (N=75) to demonstrate feasibility and preliminarily assess the impact of the QPL on key outcomes.

Detailed description

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among US women, with more than 230,000 new diagnoses and 40,000 deaths each year, along with decrements in quality of life. Half of all newly-diagnosed patients are affected with estrogen-receptor positive, early-stage disease. Clinical guidelines for these women integrate genomic tumor profiling tests such as the Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score to refine recurrence estimates and systemic therapy selection when combined with existing markers. Thousands of women receive testing each year. While these women should all receive hormonal therapy, guidelines suggest that the 25% with a high Score benefit from additional chemotherapy and the 50% with a low Score can safely avoid chemotherapy. Appropriate treatment for the 25% of women with intermediate Recurrence Scores remains unclear until clinical trial (TAILORx) results are released in the next year. Despite continuing dissemination, many challenges remain to maximize the benefits offered by testing and refined treatment selection. TAILORx results will continue to strengthen the evidence for clinical utility and increase testing rates. An effective intervention should be ready to respond to this increasing need. Communication can influence more proximal outcomes, including patient comprehension of their disease and its treatments, treatment preferences and satisfaction, involvement in care decisions as well as longer-term outcomes of treatment adherence and quality of life. This trial will test the feasibility and impact of a patient activation intervention to support effective integration of the Recurrence Score into clinical encounters and treatment decisions. Patient activation interventions utilizing a question prompt list (QPL) can impact proximal outcomes of preferences, comprehension, satisfaction and involvement. Women with newly-diagnosed breast cancer will be recruited to a single-arm trial to demonstrate feasibility and preliminarily assess the impact of the QPL on key outcomes. Aims are to: Aim 1. Examine intervention feasibility. Feasibility will be examined in 3 areas: 1) patient and oncologist acceptability, 2) participant recruitment and retention, and 3) intervention dosage and fidelity. Aim 2. Evaluate intervention effects on comprehension and treatment preferences. 2a: Participants will demonstrate significant increases in comprehension about their disease and its treatments from pre- to post-QPL. 2b: Participants will be more likely to report Score-concordant preferences from pre to post-QPL. Aim 3. Assess potential intervention mechanisms on comprehension, preferences and satisfaction. 3a: Patient comprehension and satisfaction will be higher following encounters with greater shared decision making, greater perceived communication quality, and more frequent discussion of risks/benefits of treatments. 3b: Patient preferences will likely be more Score-concordant following encounters with greater shared decision making, greater perceived communication quality, and more frequent discussion of risks/benefits of treatments.

Interventions

Patients receive a booklet that contains questions regarding their diagnosis, testing and treatment.

Sponsors

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute
CollaboratorOTHER
Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute
CollaboratorOTHER
Georgetown University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
40 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Women aged 40-75 who receive Oncotype DX testing are eligible.

Exclusion criteria

* Cognitive impairment that precludes informed consent and inability to converse in English given the focus on communication in this study. Clinical communication between providers and patients with limited English proficiency is beyond the scope of this work.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Knowledge Related to Testing and TreatmentOne monthKnowledge was measured for testing, treatment and overall. Responses included true/false/don't know with a point per correct answer. Testing knowledge was assessed with a 12-item scale from Richman et al. (2011), with an overall score from 0-12. Treatment knowledge was assessed with 5 items from the Breast Cancer Systemic Therapy Decision Quality Instrument (Lee et al., 2014; overall score of 0-5). Knowledge was scored separately for testing and treatment, as well as summed for a total knowledge score (0-17), which is used as the primary outcome. Higher scores correspond to more knowledge.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Received QPL
Each participant of this single-arm trial received the QPL
65
Total65

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up23

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicReceived QPL
Age, Continuous60.2 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
3 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
62 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Knowledge Related to Testing and Treatment10.95 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.98
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
10 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
53 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
65 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 88
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 88
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 88

Outcome results

Primary

Knowledge Related to Testing and Treatment

Knowledge was measured for testing, treatment and overall. Responses included true/false/don't know with a point per correct answer. Testing knowledge was assessed with a 12-item scale from Richman et al. (2011), with an overall score from 0-12. Treatment knowledge was assessed with 5 items from the Breast Cancer Systemic Therapy Decision Quality Instrument (Lee et al., 2014; overall score of 0-5). Knowledge was scored separately for testing and treatment, as well as summed for a total knowledge score (0-17), which is used as the primary outcome. Higher scores correspond to more knowledge.

Time frame: One month

Population: All consented participants who completed both time points

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Received QPLKnowledge Related to Testing and Treatment12.36 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026