3.8 Article

Real-World Treatment Patterns for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer in Europe and the United States

Journal

ONCOLOGY AND THERAPY
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 189-197

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40487-016-0033-z

Keywords

Chemotherapy; Endocrine therapy; Guidelines; Hormone receptor-positive breast cancer; Quality of care; Treatment patterns

Categories

Funding

  1. Ipsos Healthcare
  2. AstraZeneca

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Clinical guidelines generally recommend endocrine therapy over chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (unless life-threatening metastases are present). This study aimed to assess the real-world treatment patterns of patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer in Europe and the United States. Methods: Treatment patterns in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) and the United States from January 2012 to December 2014 were investigated using a patient record database (Global Oncology Monitor (c)). Sample data were projected to the wider clinical population to provide running annual estimates every 3 months. Results: Sample sizes ranged from 1272 to 1640 patients in Europe and from 2225 to 2760 patients in the United States. Across all lines of therapy, 37-43% (Europe) and 45-50% (United States) of patients received chemotherapy. More patients received endocrine therapy than chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer (Europe: 51-54% vs. 33-35%; United States: 53-60% vs. 34-42%). In contrast, endocrine therapy-only regimens were given less commonly than chemotherapy-only regimens in the third-line setting in both Europe and the United States. Conclusions: Chemotherapy is used extensively in routine clinical practice for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. The results also suggest that the treatment patternsin Europe and the United States are qualitatively different.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available