Gynecologic oncology · 2025
Evaluating patient perspectives about the acceptability of a novel prognostic gene expression signature for high grade serous ovarian cancer: The OTTA-SPOT study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Evans Holly E, Firriolo Amber-Marie, Houweling Rachel, Kelada Lauren, Stannard Gill, Frawley Jacinta, McGill Brittany C, Ramus Susan J, Lee Yeh Chen, Friedlander Michael, Duggan Jennifer, Wakefield Claire E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium - Stratified Prognosis of Ovarian Tumors (OTTA-SPOT) 101 gene expression signature, predicts 5-year survival on a tumor biopsy at diagnosis and identifies the 20 % of patients with a 10 % probability of 5-year survival with standard of care therapy, who may benefit from alternate treatments. This study aims to understand how patients with ovarian cancer perceive the potential advantages and disadvantages of OTTA-SPOT, their willingness for the test, and preferred methods of receiving test results.
METHODS: Participants were eligible if they had a diagnosis of ovarian cancer and resided in Australia or New Zealand. Participants completed a mixed-methods questionnaire, co-designed with consumers, which investigated their perspectives about prognostic tests for ovarian cancer. Participants could opt-in to a 1-1.5-h online focus group to discuss their perspectives further.
RESULTS: Thirty-three participants completed the online questionnaire. Participants perceived the potential advantages of the prognostic test outweighed the disadvantages, and 88 % would be 'very willing' or 'willing' to undergo prognostic testing if available. Nine participants took part in focus groups. We developed four themes from thematic analysis of these discussions: (1) Cancer journey and context, (2) Advantages and disadvantages of knowing prognosis, (3) The complexities of when to receive prognostic information, and (4) Communication and service delivery.
CONCLUSION: Participants with ovarian cancer viewed prognostic testing positively. However, successful implementation will require a patient-centred approach that accommodates diverse preferences around how the test is introduced, and results are communicated.
METHODS: Participants were eligible if they had a diagnosis of ovarian cancer and resided in Australia or New Zealand. Participants completed a mixed-methods questionnaire, co-designed with consumers, which investigated their perspectives about prognostic tests for ovarian cancer. Participants could opt-in to a 1-1.5-h online focus group to discuss their perspectives further.
RESULTS: Thirty-three participants completed the online questionnaire. Participants perceived the potential advantages of the prognostic test outweighed the disadvantages, and 88 % would be 'very willing' or 'willing' to undergo prognostic testing if available. Nine participants took part in focus groups. We developed four themes from thematic analysis of these discussions: (1) Cancer journey and context, (2) Advantages and disadvantages of knowing prognosis, (3) The complexities of when to receive prognostic information, and (4) Communication and service delivery.
CONCLUSION: Participants with ovarian cancer viewed prognostic testing positively. However, successful implementation will require a patient-centred approach that accommodates diverse preferences around how the test is introduced, and results are communicated.