Abstract P4-03-11: Patient and health care provider perspectives on oral versus intramuscular endocrine therapy for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background: Next generation oral selective ER degraders (SERDs) have been designed to improve efficacy and tolerability and may serve as an alternative to intramuscular (IM) fulvestrant for the treatment of ER+, HER2- locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Thus, it is important to understand perspectives on the benefit and burden of oral and IM endocrine therapy (ET) from both patients and health care providers (HCPs). Methods: This US-based qualitative interview study recruited female patients with MBC treated with both oral ET and fulvestrant within the past 3 years and HCPs (medical oncologists and oncology nurses). One-on-one semi-structured interviews focused on four concepts: preference, benefits, burdens, and adherence to oral and IM ET. Patients spoke directly about their own personal experience with both types of administration, while HCPs provided their perspectives based on their clinical practice experience. Interviews were conducted by a third-party vendor and occurred September 2023 through May 2024. Interview transcripts were analyzed in ATLAS.ti through an iterative process and followed a qualitative analysis plan. Results: An asterisk is used to denote responses that are not mutually exclusive. Of the 22 patients interviewed, 64% preferred oral ET, 27% preferred IM ET, and 9% had no preference. Of the fourteen patients that preferred oral ET, they did so for convenience (71%)*, non-painful administration (36%)*, and fear of needles (21%)*. Six patients preferred IM ET due to ease of monthly administration. The benefit of oral ET reported by the greatest proportion of patients was convenience (86%)*, followed by belief that the treatment is working (32%)*. The benefit reported by the greatest proportion of patients for IM ET was belief that the treatment is working (64%)*, followed by not having to remember to take it (36%)*. Patient reported burdens to oral ET included side effects (59%)*, remembering to take medication (32%)*, insurance (23%)*, and reminder of diagnosis (18%)*. Patient-experienced burdens to IM ET were injection site pain (91%)*, side effects (82%)*, and having to travel for monthly appointments (45%)*. Nearly all patients (91%)* reported it was easy to take their oral ET, whereas 32%* reported it was easy to receive the IM ET. Of the 20 HCPs interviewed (medical oncologists=10, oncology nurses=10), nearly all (90%) perceived patients to prefer oral ET. All HCPs stated patient convenience is a benefit of oral ET, and patients not having to remember to take medication is a benefit of IM ET. HCPs also reported inadequate insurance coverage (55%)*, side effects (40%)*, and compliance (30%)* to be perceived burdens of oral ET, and that pain (85%)* and travel (70%)* were burdens of IM ET. HCPs’ perception of ease of administration was equivalent for both oral and IM ET, 80% reporting they were both easy. Conclusion: Among patients with MBC that have been treated with both oral and IM ET, the majority prefer oral ET and report that convenience of an orally administered medication was considered a key benefit and the leading reason for preference of oral ET. Injection site pain and the need to travel for monthly appointments for IM ET were reported burdens from patients and perceived as burdens from HCPs. Notably, although most HCPs reported ease of administration for both oral and IM ET, only a third of patients interviewed reported that it was easy to receive IM ET. Citation Format: Rebecca Speck, Spencer Schaff, Gale Harding, Nalin Payakachat, Jincy John, Aarti Chawla, Christine Agius, Shakeela W Bahadur, Kathryn E Hudson, Mohammed Jaloudi, Ritesh Parajuli, Gregory A Vidal, Elizabeth D Bacci. Patient and health care provider perspectives on oral versus intramuscular endocrine therapy for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024; 2024 Dec 10-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-03-11.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.