biostudies-literatureTan WSUrology FoundationMedical Research Council408-417https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC6767410biostudies-literatureUnknown124(3)<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the minimal accepted sensitivity (MAS) of a urine biomarker that patients are willing to accept to replace cystoscopy and to assess qualitatively their views and reasons.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting people with bladder cancer for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed-methods approach comprising (1) a questionnaire to assess patients' experience with cystoscopy and patients' preference for cystoscopy vs urinary biomarker, and (2) semi-structured interviews to understand patient views, choice and reasons for their preference.<h4>Results</h4>A urine biomarker with an MAS of 90% would be accepted by 75.8% of patients. This was despite a high selBJU internationalMixed-methods approach to exploring patients' perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance.PMC6767410MR/M025411/1Williams NConnolly KFennelly RScarratt LKehoe LBaird YConnolly SLomas CMostafid HTaylor AInclair AJain SPelluri SCutting CKelkar ACocks SHodgkiss THargreaves JWaymont CMorrison JBeesley KWassall HBroadhead SBailey LBartlett CHatton JWilliams SStancombe LMcdonald KFossey GBarias-Lara TEdmunds EBankole TMadine JCain MGherman AAcher POblak MNewton MSavill HDelves GHicks JNichols LDann AClitheroe PGreen KNg CJCogley LBishara SPearson SMaher SCresswell JThompson ABradfield SHill PBuckhorn KDonkov IBlades RPorter TKhetrapal PHathaway-Lees SSarpong RHill MEvans SHunt JFitzgerald JDawson LLovegrove WCarter VMistry RWilkinson LSrirangam SEllis DAtkinson KRidhar AMills RBowen GAmes KJohnson JOcampo FScott CGriffiths LChrisopoulou ALonghurst SMorris MDukes STeo CHPati JHarris MBaillie KMoore SPiper LWalsh JHewitt DBurns HRennie KMoore JWhotton NWarburton HPayne DAllan JMccormick JCherian JZelhof BCollins GGregory HBorwell JDavies ACoulding MVaux AChadbourn IWardle HDevereaux LProctor CClark MVallejera GCooke PChilvers AO'Brien NTownley BLoftus ARoyle LCannon JMzazi SChan DCook AKrishnan RAdeniran PWorth CCook JTan WSRidgway SHenderson AWhetton KTribbeck MHaydock HMalde SGreenslade SMain CThomas SCaddy SRiley KMasood SDent KThatcher HDrakeley SBrew-Graves CDETECT II trial collaboratorsSriram RGoffe AKotze MDay AGuerdette MWilson DCulmsee CBaker HKnight HHodgkinson SMacLean KRoberts HChadwick JMiddleton KBarber NJohnstone DRees ARane AWatson DFeber AHolbrook BStorr EBrar NKeith SHeeney ECornwell MPeracha MHeap HMisra SRichards AVankoutrik LMenzies HNatale SLunt NMargalef JGipson AJannapureddy RPoile CJewers KMcCartin FRogers MSlevin KLty ARogers JRothwell JWilliamson LPower AHull RHeinrich MBayles AReyner SSmith KGrant AMadaan SSmith SKelly JDAllsop JfalseMixed-methods approach to exploring patients' perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the minimal accepted sensitivity (MAS) of a urine biomarker that patients are willing to accept to replace cystoscopy and to assess qualitatively their views and reasons.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting people with bladder cancer for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed-methods approach comprising (1) a questionnaire to assess patients' experience with cystoscopy and patients' preference for cystoscopy vs urinary biomarker, and (2) semi-structured interviews to understand patient views, choice and reasons for their preference.<h4>Results</h4>A urine biomarker with an MAS of 90% would be accepted by 75.8% of patients. This was despite a high sel2019-01-01T00:00:00Z2019 Sep2026-05-01T09:00:00.025Z2019-10-11T07:13:13ZS-EPMC67674103069461210.1111/bju.14690