Abstract 1121
Background
For patients diagnosed with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer, endocrine therapy (ET) is prescribed, which reduces recurrence and mortality rates (Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, 2011). Despite the prognostic benefits of ET, the adherence to treatment varies, and 30%–70% of the patients discontinue their treatment within five years (Daly et al., 2017; Tinari et al., 2015; Ursem et al., 2015), often during their first year of treatment (He et al., 2015), due to the fact that ET is associated with adverse side-effects (Regan et al., 2011).
Methods
The study was conducted in a surgical out-patient care unit at a hospital in Sweden. Inclusion criteria were women diagnosed with breast cancer and treated with ET after surgery. Forty-eight patients were invited to participate, of which 23 declined, thus 25 women were included. Seven focus group interviews, with two to five participants in each group, were conducted using an interview guide according to Krueger’s (2014) strategy. The interview guide contained six open-ended questions aiming to explore the women’s experiences of ET after breast cancer surgery. Inductive qualitative content analysis was used (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).
Results
The analysis resulted in three categories that described the women’s experiences: the treatment “creates discomfort”; “promotes levels of management”; and “causes feelings of abandonment”. Women’s experiences of treatment could at first glance be seen as positive, as perceived protection, but after further analysis, a deeper meaning was identified: protection with reservation. When experiencing discomfort, the women were urged to manage the situation, although the mode of management sometimes varied. The women reported that they needed support, but when the support did not appear, they felt as though they had been abandoned. Moreover, knowledge about side-effects became an obstacle. The participants described feeling abandoned, but they also described their disease as “cancer light”.
Conclusions
Professionals need to explore the pre-knowledge and preconceptions that patients might have. This could be achieved by listening to the patient before providing them with information. The information needs to be customized specifically to each person.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
wileyeditingservices.com
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Assar Gabrielsson’s Foundation, Herbert and Karin Jacobsson’s Foundation, and the Swedish Society of Nursing.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
2655 - The K-BASKET trial: A prospective phase II biomarker-driven multiple basket trial in Korean solid cancer patients.
Presenter: Seul Kim
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5938 - Cambridge Liquid biopsy “CALIBRATION” study: Can changes in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) predict durable tumour responses in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer receiving MEDI4736?
Presenter: Constanza Linossi
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3799 - Validation of a tumour mutational burden workflow on routine histological samples of colorectal cancer and assessment of a cohort with synchronous hepatic metastases
Presenter: Andrea Mafficini
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4647 - Microsatellite Instability Testing and Lynch Syndrome Screening For Colorectal Cancer Patients Through Tumor Sequencing
Presenter: Li Liu
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3231 - "Liquid Withdarw" technique in CT-guided cutting needle lung biopsy: decreased incidence of complications and increased tissue amount for lung cancer molecular testing.
Presenter: Xue Wang
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3282 - WGS Implementation in standard cancer Diagnostics for Every cancer patient (WIDE)
Presenter: Paul Roepman
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5905 - Known and unknown gene fusion detection capabilities of solid tumor laboratories conducting next generation sequencing in 6 countries
Presenter: Steph Finucane
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4238 - Clinical and Analytical Accuracy of a 523 Gene Panel Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Assay on Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) Solid Tumor Samples
Presenter: Ina Deras
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2493 - Methylation analysis of MLH1 using droplet digital PCR and methylation sensitive restriction enzyme.
Presenter: Celine De Rop
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2963 - Analytical performance of the Resolution-HRD plasma assay used to identify mCRPC patients with biallelic disruption of DNA repair genes for treatment with niraparib
Presenter: Ira Pekker
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract