Clinical trial · Observational
Understanding Patient Experience and Preferences for the QT Scanner Compared to Mammography
NCT04057391CI-TRIAL-00058071suspendedClinicalTrials.gov clinicaltrialsProvenance
- Source
- ClinicalTrials.gov
- Retrieved
- Sep 8, 2026
- Layer
- normalized (units and labels harmonized; values unchanged)
- Run
- ING-CLINICALTRIALS-20260908-000001
Why stopped (as posted): This study was suspended by QTultrasound as other studies were reprioritized.
Summary
Brief summary (as posted)
This study aims to characterize patient experience, satisfaction and preference for use of the QT Scanner in comparison to mammography by directly engaging women who have experience with both technologies.
Conditions
Conditions (1)
Free-text conditions as registered, with the CancerIndex entity they were reconciled to and the match type.
| Condition (as posted) | Mapped entity | Match | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breast Cancer Screening | — | UNRESOLVED | — |
Interventions
Interventions (1)
| Intervention | Type | Mapped drug | Match |
|---|---|---|---|
| QT Scanner | Diagnostic Test | — | UNRESOLVED |
Design
Arms and outcomes
Arms (1)
- label
- QT Scanner in comparison to mammography
- description
- Women who have experience with both technologies (QT Scanner/Breast mammography
- interventionNames
- Diagnostic Test: QT Scanner
Primary outcomes (1)
- measure
- Qualitative phase: structured one-on-one interviews
- timeFrame
- 30 days
- description
- one-on-one interviews will be conducted by trained professionals with about 20 women
Eligibility
Eligibility (as posted)
- Sex
- Female
Show eligibility criteria text
Inclusion Criteria: * Have used the QT Scanner * Have used mammography * Speak English * Willing to provide consent and participate in the survey Exclusion Criteria: • Excluded if all Inclusion Criteria are not met
References
Publications (3)
- BACKGROUNDAcquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, Rothman M; PRO Harmonization Group. Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003 Sep-Oct;6(5):522-31. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65309.x. PMID 14627058
- BACKGROUNDBlumen H, Fitch K, Polkus V. Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016 Feb;9(1):23-32. PMID 27066193
- BACKGROUNDJohnson FR, Zhou M. Patient Preferences in Regulatory Benefit-Risk Assessments: A US Perspective. Value Health. 2016 Sep-Oct;19(6):741-745. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.008. PMID 27712700