Mixed‐methods approach to exploring patients' perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance. (4th March 2019)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Mixed‐methods approach to exploring patients' perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance. (4th March 2019)
- Main Title:
- Mixed‐methods approach to exploring patients' perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance
- Authors:
- Tan, Wei Shen
Teo, Chin Hai
Chan, Delcos
Heinrich, Malgorzata
Feber, Andrew
Sarpong, Rachael
Allan, Jennifer
Williams, Norman
Brew‐Graves, Chris
Ng, Chirk Jenn
Kelly, John D. - Other Names:
- Khetrapal P investigator.
ridhar A investigator.
Baker H investigator.
Ocampo F investigator.
Whotton N investigator.
Dent K investigator.
Pearson S investigator.
Hatton J investigator.
Newton M investigator.
Heeney E investigator.
Green K investigator.
Evans S investigator.
Rogers M investigator.
Dann A investigator.
Cook J investigator.
Cornwell M investigator.
Mills R investigator.
Knight H investigator.
Maher S investigator.
Rane A investigator.
Thomas S investigator.
Reyner S investigator.
Vallejera G investigator.
Adeniran P investigator.
Masood S investigator.
Ridgway S investigator.
Coulding M investigator.
Savill H investigator.
Mccormick J investigator.
Clark M investigator.
Collins G investigator.
Jewers K investigator.
Keith S investigator.
Bowen G investigator.
Hargreaves J investigator.
Riley K investigator.
Srirangam S investigator.
Mistry R investigator.
Chadwick J investigator.
Cocks S investigator.
Hull R investigator.
Loftus A investigator.
Dawson L investigator.
Roberts H investigator.
Main C investigator.
Jain S investigator.
Waymont C investigator.
Rogers J investigator.
Grant A investigator.
Carter V investigator.
Heap H investigator.
Lomas C investigator.
Cooke P investigator.
Baird Y investigator.
Moore S investigator.
Greenslade S investigator.
Margalef J investigator.
Chadbourn I investigator.
Harris M investigator.
Hicks J investigator.
Clitheroe P investigator.
Connolly S investigator.
Hodgkinson S investigator.
Haydock H investigator.
inclair A investigator.
Storr E investigator.
Cogley L investigator.
Natale S investigator.
Lovegrove W investigator.
Smith S investigator.
Smith K investigator.
Hewitt D investigator.
Sriram R investigator.
Atkinson K investigator.
Royle L investigator.
Madine J investigator.
MacLean K investigator.
Walsh J investigator.
Guerdette M investigator.
Hill M investigator.
Payne D investigator.
Power A investigator.
Cannon J investigator.
Devereaux L investigator.
Thompson A investigator.
Scarratt L investigator.
Hodgkiss T investigator.
Johnstone D investigator.
Johnson J investigator.
Allsop J investigator.
Rothwell J investigator.
Connolly K investigator.
Cherian J investigator.
Wardle H investigator.
Wilson D investigator.
Bayles A investigator.
Pelluri S investigator.
Pati J investigator.
Gherman A investigator.
Scott C investigator.
Madaan S investigator.
Taylor A investigator.
Edmunds E investigator.
Moore J investigator.
Rees A investigator.
Williams S investigator.
Caddy S investigator.
Dukes S investigator.
Goffe A investigator.
Buckhorn K investigator.
Nichols L investigator.
Acher P investigator.
Baillie K investigator.
Middleton K investigator.
Proctor C investigator.
Cresswell J investigator.
Chilvers A investigator.
Cain M investigator.
Vaux A investigator.
Watson D investigator.
Bradfield S investigator.
Gregory H investigator.
Mostafid H investigator.
Kehoe L investigator.
Drakeley S investigator.
Davies A investigator.
Williamson L investigator.
Krishnan R investigator.
Lunt N investigator.
Hill P investigator.
Burns H investigator.
Townley B investigator.
Wilkinson L investigator.
Wassall H investigator.
Hunt J investigator.
Holbrook B investigator.
Stancombe L investigator.
Morrison J investigator.
Vankoutrik L investigator.
Misra S investigator.
Fossey G investigator.
Richards A investigator.
Mcdonald K investigator.
Henderson A investigator.
Fennelly R investigator.
Tribbeck M investigator.
Ames K investigator.
Borwell J investigator.
Kotze M investigator.
Beesley K investigator.
Rennie K investigator.
Porter T investigator.
Gipson A investigator.
Piper L investigator.
Bailey L investigator.
Chrisopoulou A investigator.
Slevin K investigator.
McCartin F investigator.
Warburton H investigator.
Hathaway‐Lees S investigator.
Whetton K investigator.
Delves G investigator.
Day A investigator.
Bankole T investigator.
Broadhead S investigator.
Malde S investigator.
Oblak M investigator.
Ellis D investigator.
Bishara S investigator.
Barias‐Lara T investigator.
Donkov I investigator.
Thatcher H investigator.
Morris M investigator.
Culmsee C investigator.
Menzies H investigator.
Bartlett C investigator.
Cutting C investigator.
O'Brien N investigator.
Jannapureddy R investigator.
Kelkar A investigator.
Fitzgerald J investigator.
Longhurst S investigator.
Worth C investigator.
Peracha M investigator.
Mzazi S investigator.
Poile C investigator.
Griffiths L investigator.
Cook A investigator.
Barber N investigator.
Brar N investigator.
lty A investigator.
Zelhof B investigator.
Blades Rosie investigator.
… (more) - Abstract:
- Abstract : Objectives: To determine the minimal accepted sensitivity (MAS) of a urine biomarker that patients are willing to accept to replace cystoscopy and to assess qualitatively their views and reasons. Patients and Methods: Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting people with bladder cancer for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed‐methods approach comprising (1) a questionnaire to assess patients' experience with cystoscopy and patients' preference for cystoscopy vs urinary biomarker, and (2) semi‐structured interviews to understand patient views, choice and reasons for their preference. Results: A urine biomarker with an MAS of 90% would be accepted by 75.8% of patients. This was despite a high self‐reported prevalence of haematuria (51.0%), dysuria/lower urinary tract symptoms (69.1%) and urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics (25.8%). There was no association between MAS with patient demographics, adverse events experienced, cancer characteristics or distance of patients' home to hospital. The qualitative analysis suggested that patients acknowledge that cystoscopy is invasive, embarrassing and associated with adverse events but are willing to tolerate the procedure because of its high sensitivity. Patients have confidence in cystoscopy and appreciate the visual diagnosis of cancer. Both low‐ and high‐risk patients would consider a biomarker with a reported sensitivity similar toAbstract : Objectives: To determine the minimal accepted sensitivity (MAS) of a urine biomarker that patients are willing to accept to replace cystoscopy and to assess qualitatively their views and reasons. Patients and Methods: Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting people with bladder cancer for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed‐methods approach comprising (1) a questionnaire to assess patients' experience with cystoscopy and patients' preference for cystoscopy vs urinary biomarker, and (2) semi‐structured interviews to understand patient views, choice and reasons for their preference. Results: A urine biomarker with an MAS of 90% would be accepted by 75.8% of patients. This was despite a high self‐reported prevalence of haematuria (51.0%), dysuria/lower urinary tract symptoms (69.1%) and urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics (25.8%). There was no association between MAS with patient demographics, adverse events experienced, cancer characteristics or distance of patients' home to hospital. The qualitative analysis suggested that patients acknowledge that cystoscopy is invasive, embarrassing and associated with adverse events but are willing to tolerate the procedure because of its high sensitivity. Patients have confidence in cystoscopy and appreciate the visual diagnosis of cancer. Both low‐ and high‐risk patients would consider a biomarker with a reported sensitivity similar to that of cystoscopy. Conclusion: Patients value the high sensitivity of cystoscopy despite the reported discomfort and adverse events experienced after it. The sensitivity of a urinary biomarker must be close to cystoscopy to gain patients' acceptance. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- BJU international. Volume 124:Number 3(2019)
- Journal:
- BJU international
- Issue:
- Volume 124:Number 3(2019)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 124, Issue 3 (2019)
- Year:
- 2019
- Volume:
- 124
- Issue:
- 3
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2019-0124-0003-0000
- Page Start:
- 408
- Page End:
- 417
- Publication Date:
- 2019-03-04
- Subjects:
- biomarker -- diagnostic -- patient‐reported outcome measure -- questionnaires -- semi‐structured interviews -- #BladderCancer -- #blcsm
Genitourinary organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals
Genitourinary organs -- Surgery -- Periodicals
Urology -- Periodicals
616.6 - Journal URLs:
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1464-410X ↗
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1111/bju.14690 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1464-4096
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 2105.758000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 16951.xml