Literature DB >> 28739405

The Burden of Cystoscopic Bladder Cancer Surveillance: Anxiety, Discomfort, and Patient Preferences for Decision Making.

Kevin Koo1, Lisa Zubkoff2, Brenda E Sirovich3, Philip P Goodney3, Douglas J Robertson3, John D Seigne4, Florian R Schroeck5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine discomfort, anxiety, and preferences for decision making in patients undergoing surveillance cystoscopy for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).
METHODS: Veterans with a prior diagnosis of NMIBC completed validated survey instruments assessing procedural discomfort, worry, and satisfaction, and were invited to participate in semistructured focus groups about their experience and desire to be involved in surveillance decision making. Focus group transcripts were analyzed qualitatively, using (1) systematic iterative coding, (2) triangulation involving multiple perspectives from urologists and an implementation scientist, and (3) searching and accounting for disconfirming evidence.
RESULTS: Twelve patients participated in 3 focus groups. Median number of lifetime cystoscopy procedures was 6.5 (interquartile range 4-10). Based on survey responses, two-thirds of participants (64%) experienced some degree of procedural discomfort or worry, and all participants reported improvement in at least 2 dimensions of overall well-being following cystoscopy. Qualitative analysis of the focus groups indicated that participants experience preprocedural anxiety and worry about their disease. Although many participants did not perceive themselves as having a defined role in decision making surrounding their surveillance care, their preferences to be involved in decision making varied widely, ranging from acceptance of the physician's recommendation, to uncertainty, to dissatisfaction with not being involved more in determining the intensity of surveillance care.
CONCLUSION: Many patients with NMIBC experience discomfort, anxiety, and worry related to disease progression and not only cystoscopy. Although some patients are content to defer surveillance decisions to their physicians, others prefer to be more involved. Future work should focus on defining patient-centered approaches to surveillance decision making. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28739405      PMCID: PMC5626609          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  18 in total

1.  Development and validation of the PCQ: a questionnaire to measure the psychological consequences of screening mammography.

Authors:  J Cockburn; T De Luise; S Hurley; K Clover
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Older women's experience with a benign breast biopsy—a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Rebecca A Silliman; Long H Ngo; Robyn L Birdwell; Valerie Fein-Zachary; Jessica Donato; Edward R Marcantonio
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Cancer statistics, 2015.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  Attendance at cancer follow-up clinic: does it increase anxiety or provide reassurance for men successfully treated for testicular cancer?

Authors:  S K MacBride; F Whyte
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.592

5.  What is the psychological impact of mammographic screening on younger women with a family history of breast cancer? Findings from a prospective cohort study by the PIMMS Management Group.

Authors:  Sally Tyndel; Joan Austoker; Bethan J Henderson; Kate Brain; Clare Bankhead; Alison Clements; Eila K Watson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-09-01       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  How distressing is referral to colposcopy in cervical cancer screening?: a prospective quality of life study.

Authors:  Ida J Korfage; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Steven M Westenberg; Theo Helmerhorst; J Dik F Habbema; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Adverse effects of cystoscopy and its impact on patients' quality of life and sexual performance.

Authors:  Kobi Stav; Dan Leibovici; Elyahu Goren; Anna Livshitz; Yoram I Siegel; Arie Lindner; Amnon Zisman
Journal:  Isr Med Assoc J       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 0.892

8.  Lidocaine 2% gel versus plain lubricating gel for pain reduction during flexible cystoscopy: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized, controlled trials.

Authors:  Amit R Patel; J Stephen Jones; Denise Babineau
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-01-18       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Treatment efficacy of virtual reality distraction in the reduction of pain and anxiety during cystoscopy.

Authors:  Marc R Walker; George J S Kallingal; John E Musser; Raymond Folen; Melba C Stetz; Joseph Y Clark
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.437

Review 10.  The burden of bladder cancer care: direct and indirect costs.

Authors:  Matthew Mossanen; John L Gore
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.309

View more
  13 in total

1.  The impact of frequent cystoscopy on surgical care and cancer outcomes among patients with low-risk, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Florian R Schroeck; Kristine E Lynch; Zhongze Li; Todd A MacKenzie; David S Han; John D Seigne; Douglas J Robertson; Brenda Sirovich; Philip P Goodney
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer cystoscopic surveillance: from overuse to underuse and non-adherence impact.

Authors:  Leonardo O Reis
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-12

3.  Determinants of Risk-Aligned Bladder Cancer Surveillance-Mixed-Methods Evaluation Using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Framework.

Authors:  Florian R Schroeck; A Aziz Ould Ismail; Grace N Perry; David A Haggstrom; Steven L Sanchez; DeRon R Walker; Jeanette Young; Susan Zickmund; Lisa Zubkoff
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2021-08-31

Review 4.  Implementing risk-aligned bladder cancer surveillance care.

Authors:  Florian R Schroeck; Nicholas Smith; Jeremy B Shelton
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 3.498

5.  Clinical Use Cases for a Tool to Assess Risk in Superficial Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Carmit K McMullen; Maureen O'Keeffe Rosetti; Sheila Weinmann; Michael C Leo; Matthew E Nielsen
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2019-08-19

Review 6.  Patient-Centered Outcomes in Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  John L Gore
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Defining Priorities to Improve Patient Experience in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Tullika Garg; Jill Nault Connors; Ilene G Ladd; Tyler L Bogaczyk; Sharon L Larson
Journal:  Bladder Cancer       Date:  2018-01-20

8.  Understanding risk and refining surveillance following tumor resection for low grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Charles C Peyton; Mounsif Azizi; Wade J Sexton
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-12

9.  Extent of Risk-Aligned Surveillance for Cancer Recurrence Among Patients With Early-Stage Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Florian R Schroeck; Kristine E Lynch; Ji Won Chang; Todd A MacKenzie; John D Seigne; Douglas J Robertson; Philip P Goodney; Brenda Sirovich
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2018-09-28

10.  Establishing a prediction model of infection during the intravesical instillation of bladder cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.

Authors:  Song Chen; Yun Yang; Ziyi Luo; Haiqing Deng; Tiancheng Peng; Zhongqiang Guo
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 4.207

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.