Methods: This was a qualitative study with patients diagnosed with recurrent ovarian cancer and receiving chemotherapy at a hospital gynecologic day-care unit. In-depth individual interviews were conducted with patients to explore how they coped with recurrence of ovarian cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically.
Results: The participants' (n = 10) age range was 52-84 years, the three most common ethnic backgrounds were represented (Malay, Chinese, and Indian), and most of the patients were well educated. All patients were on chemotherapy. Six coping strategies were identified: (1) maintaining a mindset of hopefulness, (2) avoidance of information, (3) accepting their condition, (4) seeking spiritual help, (5) relying on family for support, and (6) coping with financial costs.
Conclusions: Coping strategies employed during ovarian cancer recurrence in this setting were rarely based on the accurate information appraisal, but rather on the individual emotion and personal beliefs.
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.