TY - JOUR T1 - Patient acceptability of ctDNA testing in endometrial cancer follow-up JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.07.15.20154195 SP - 2020.07.15.20154195 AU - A Relton AU - A Collins AU - DS Guttery AU - D Gorsia AU - HJ McDermott AU - EL Moss Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/16/2020.07.15.20154195.abstract N2 - Objective Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is emerging as a potential option to detect disease recurrence in many cancer types however, ensuring patient acceptability of changing clinical practice and the introduction of new technology is paramount. This study aimed to explore women’s opinions on the acceptability of ctDNA to monitor for endometrial cancer (EC) recurrence.Methods Women enrolled on a non-intervention cohort study determining the ability of ctDNA to detect recurrent endometrial cancer were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Data was analysed using Template Analysis.Results Eighteen women were interviewed. Participants represented a mix of cases, including early stage high-risk EC, metastatic disease at diagnosis and EC recurrence, to ensure a wide range of participant experiences were captured. A ctDNA blood test was viewed by participants as more physically and psychologically acceptable than clinical examination to monitor for EC recurrence. In particular, participants expressed overwhelming preference for a blood test rather than pelvic examination. Although participants acknowledged that an abnormal ctDNA result could cause anxiety, they expressed a preference to be informed of their results, even if a recurrence was too small to detect radiologically. Explanations for these opinions were a desire for certainty whether their cancer would recur or not, and knowledge would help them be more aware of symptoms that should be reported to their clinician.Conclusions ctDNA monitoring to identify EC recurrence appears to be acceptable to patients, and for many, may be preferable to clinical examination.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by a Hope Against Cancer/Leicester Precision Medicine 289 Institute PhD studentship (DSG, ELM, DNG) in conjunction with the UK Department of Health 290 on an Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre grant [C10604/A25151], Hope Against Cancer 291 grant [RM60GO754] (EM) and Medical Research Council (MRC) Proximity to Discovery 292 scheme award [MCPC17194].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Wales Research Ethics Committee 7 (17/WA/0342)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data will be made available upon publication ER -