Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2024

Bridging Gaps in TNBC: Comparative Analysis of Patient Demographics and Treatment Patterns Between Australia and EU4+UK Countries  (#398)

Imogen Smith 1 , Clara Brown 1 , James Etwell 1 , Lawrence Farrell 1 , Emma Peffer 1 , Euan Wilson 1 , Aneta Suder 2
  1. IQVIA, Australia, NSW
  2. Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Aim: 

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) constitutes 10-15% of global breast cancer cases, with patients typically experiencing a poor prognosis. However, there is a lack of global comparative studies on TNBC patients in real-world settings. This study aims to bridge this gap by comparing patient demographics and treatment between Australian and EU4+UK patients. 

Methods: 

We analysed anonymised patient-level data from the cross-sectional online survey conducted by the IQVIA Oncology Dynamics real-world data database. Australian cohort (n=71) covered 2022-2024, while EU4+UK cohort (n=1800) covered the most recent moving- annual-total (MAT) to March 2024. We focused on patient demographics and treatment patterns across first (1L) second (2L) and third+ (3L+) lines. 

Results: 

TNBC prevalence: 9% (Australia) vs 12% (EU4+UK). Majority aged 51-70, with 59% post-menopausal (Australia) and 62% (EU4+UK). 89% of Australian patients had an ECOG of 0 or 1, compared to 93% in the EU4+UK cohort. Private funding was used by 13% of Australian patients and 4% in EU4+UK patients. In the UK, 32% received funding through the ‘Cancer Drug Fund’, with public funding at 65%. 

A higher proportion of EU4+UK patients had advanced/metastatic disease compared to Australian patients (54% vs. 44%). In 1L treatment, taxane-monotherapy was most common in Australia (50%), whereas PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were predominant in EU4+UK (39%). In 2L treatment, PARP inhibitor/chemotherapy regimens were most frequently administrated in Australia (63%), compared to sacituzumab govitecan (SACGO) in the EU4+UK (34%). In 3L+, SACGO was the most utilised treatment in both groups (Australia: 50% vs. EU4+UK: 53%). 

Conclusion: 

This study highlights disparities in treatment funding, particularly in the UK and therapy utilisation between Australia and EU4+UK countries, underscoring the need for aligned treatment protocols and equitable access to care. Bridging these gaps will facilitate progress in global cancer care, breaking down disparities and potentially improving outcomes for TNBC patients worldwide.