306P - Real-world study of treatments received and treatment satisfaction among HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients in EU3 and US

Background

Most patients with ABC have HER2-negative (HER2-) disease. This study described management of HER2- ABC in the US and EU3 (France, Italy, Spain) by line of treatment and assess the influence of these factors on physician and patient treatment satisfaction.

Methods

Oncologists were recruited from EU3 and the US to abstract data from medical records for their next 8-12 consulting HER2- ABC patients in 2019/2020. Physicians completed a series of questions on treatment satisfaction, and patients were then invited to complete the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ). Each CTSQ domain had a range of 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater treatment satisfaction.

Results

The study included 1,977 HER2- ABC patients (US=421; EU3=1,556) aged 64 years on average. At time of data collection, 46% of patients were on 1^st line (1L) treatment, 39% on 2^nd line (2L), 14% on 3^rd line or later (3L+), and 1% on an unknown line of treatment. Combinations of hormone plus targeted therapy were the most frequent 1L and 2L regimens (53% and 39%, respectively). Chemotherapy was prescribed to 9% of 1L patients, 24% of 2L patients and 41% of 3L+ patients; immunotherapy usage was low across all lines. Differences in the distribution of treatment types were noted in each line between EU3 and the US. The proportion of physicians who were satisfied/very satisfied with treatment was 76% for 1L patients, 72% for 2L patients and 59% for 3L+ patients. The mean CTSQ, satisfaction with therapy domain scores were 77.3 (SD 15.7, range 7-100) for 1L patients (n=291), 72.1 (SD 16.2, range 18-100) for 2L patients (n=240), and 66.7 (SD 18.2, range 18-100) for 3L+ patients (n=59). EU3 physicians and patients reported lower satisfaction vs. US for 1L and 2L. In both regions, physician and patient treatment satisfaction were concordant and decreased as by lines of treatment.

Conclusions

Treatment satisfaction decreased from 1L to 3L+ for both physicians and patients, which may be due to loss of confidence in therapy response as each line fails. Differences in geographical patterns by line of treatment were noted, these differences in care are potentially driven by formulary and guideline differences between the regions.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Eisai Inc.

Disclosure

K. Lewis, E. Clayton, A. Lambert: Financial Interests, Institutional, Full or part-time Employment: Adelphi Real World. I. Chabot: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment, Contractual consultant: Eisai. K. Ndirangu, Q. Zhao, G. Meier: Financial Interests, Institutional, Full or part-time Employment: Eisai.