ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The 2 Cohort randomised PrefHer trial examined the preferences of HER2+ve primary breast cancer patients for intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) delivery of trastuzumab via a Single Injectable Device (SID) or hand-held syringe (HHS). The novel approach and design of the study permitted an in-depth exploration of patients' experiences, the impact that different modes of delivery had on patients' well-being and implications for future management. METHODS: The preferences, experiences and general comments of patients in the PrefHer study were collected via specific semi-structured interview schedules. Exploratory analyses of data were conducted using standard methodology. The final question invited patients to make further comments, which were divided into 9 thematic categories - future delivery, compliments, time/convenience, practical considerations, pain/discomfort, study design, side-effects, psychological impact, and perceived efficacy. RESULTS: 267/467 (57%) patients made 396 additional comments, 7 were neutral, 305 positive and 86 negative. The three top categories generating the largest number of comments were compliments and gratitude about staff and being part of PrefHer (75/396; 19%), the potential future delivery of SC trastuzumab (73/396; 18%), and practical considerations about SC administration (60/396; 15%). CONCLUSIONS: Eliciting patient preferences about routes of administration of drugs via comprehensive interviews within a randomised cross-over trial yielded rich and important information. The few negative comments made demonstrated a need for proper staff training in SC administration Patients were grateful to have been part of the trial, and would have liked to continue with SC delivery. The possibility of home administration in the future also seemed acceptable. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2010-024099-25.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Patient Preference/psychology , Patient Satisfaction , Trastuzumab/administration & dosage , Administration, Intravenous/psychology , Cross-Over Studies , Female , Humans , Injections, Subcutaneous/psychologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychological sequelae associated with abnormal screening in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal randomised control trial. SETTING: Sixteen UKCTOCS centres. SAMPLE: Women aged 50-70 years randomised to annual multimodal screening, ultrasound screening or control groups. METHODS: Two groups were followed for 7 years: (1) a random sample (n = 1339), taken from all three study groups; and (2) an events sample (n = 22,035) of women with abnormal screens resulting in the need for repeat testing of either low or higher level intensity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported measures of anxiety (scores ranging from 20 to 80) and psychological morbidity. RESULTS: In the random sample the mean difference between anxiety scores after a repeat screening and those following an annual screening was 0.4 (95% CI -0.46, 1.27), and in the events sample it was 0.37 (95% CI 0.23, 0.51). The risk of psychological morbidity was only increased in the event sample for women requiring higher level repeat screening (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.18, 1.39). The risk of psychological morbidity in women with ovarian cancer was higher at both 6 weeks (OR 16.2; 95% CI 9.19, 28.54) and 6 months (OR 3.32; 95% CI 1.91, 5.77) following surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Screening does not appear to raise anxiety but psychological morbidity is elevated by more intense repeat testing following abnormal annual screens, and in women after surgical treatment for ovarian cancer.
Subject(s)
Anxiety/psychology , Early Detection of Cancer/psychology , Mass Screening/psychology , Ovarian Neoplasms/psychology , Aged , Female , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/psychology , Humans , Middle Aged , Ovarian Neoplasms/diagnosis , Ovarian Neoplasms/surgery , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Self Report , United KingdomABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Women's awareness of ovarian cancer (OC) risks, their attitudes towards and beliefs about screening, together with misunderstandings or gaps in knowledge, may influence screening uptake. METHODS: In total, 21 715 post-menopausal women completed questionnaires before randomisation into the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening. RESULTS: In all, 42.3% correctly identified their lifetime risk of OC; 87.1% knew that a family history of OC increased risk, but only 26.7% appreciated the association with a family history of breast cancer. Although 38.2% acknowledged increased risk post-menopause, only 8.8% were aware that OC diagnoses are highest in women over 65 years. Few (13.7%) recognised the association between pregnancy and reduced OC risk or protective effects of breastfeeding (6.2%). There were common misconceptions; 37.2% thought that an abnormal cervical smear and 26.4% that oral contraception increased the likelihood of OC. Although 84.4% recognised that most ovarian masses are benign, 20.2% thought having had a benign cyst increased OC risk. Most (99.4%) believed that a high uptake of OC screening would reduce mortality and (96.2%) that screen-detected cancers would have an improved prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: The results show a need for improved public understanding about OC risks and provide important information for GPs and health educationalists about initiatives needed for future awareness, prevention and screening programmes.
