This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Patient treatment preferences study version 1.0

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Understanding patient treatment preferences for muscle invasive bladder cancer: A discrete choice experiment.

  • IRAS ID

    282974

  • Contact name

    Simon Hughes

  • Contact email

    Simon.Hughes@gstt.nhs.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 10 months, 25 days

  • Research summary

    Bladder cancer is the 11th most common cancer in the UK (both male and female) yet there is proportionally less research undertaken compared to other types of cancer. Tumours that are just confined to the inner layer are classified as non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and tumours that progress deeper into the detrusor muscle are classified as muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). At the time of diagnosis for patients approximately 75% are non-muscle invasive and 25% are muscle-invasive/metastatic. MIBCs are often treated with intensive and combined treatments due to their aggressive disease progression and tendency to spread. Current best clinical practice is to offer patients with MIBC a radical cystectomy with lymph node dissection, however not all patients are suitable for surgery, or refuse it. In select cases patients may be offered trimodality therapy, a combination of minor surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Through the Patient Treatment Preferences study, we aim to better understand the most important factors for patients when deciding on the type of treatment they receive for MIBC. This will help us improve our knowledge of patient preferences and what “trade-offs” patients are willing to accept. The study consists of a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a type of questionnaire used to elicit preferences in the absence of data.

  • REC name

    South Central - Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    22/SC/0179

  • Date of REC Opinion

    10 Jun 2022

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion