Real-world treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) in Spain.

Abstract

463 Background: Real-world evidence on la/mUC management in Europe is limited. This study describes patient (pt) characteristics, treatment patterns, survival, and HCRU for pts with la/mUC in Spain. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted using electronic medical records from 9 university hospitals in Spain. The study population included all pts aged ≥18 y with a first diagnosis/record of la/mUC from 1/1/2015–12/31/2020 (study period). Date of first la/mUC record/diagnosis during the study period was the index date. Pts with urachus carcinoma or other nonurothelial cancers were excluded. Pt characteristics are described for the full study population. Treatment patterns, survival, and la/mUC-associated HCRU are described for the follow-up cohort: a subset of the study cohort with a first la/mUC diagnosis/record from 1/1/2015–6/30/2020 (ie, to allow for ≥6 mo follow-up). Pts were followed from index date to death, loss to follow-up, or end of study. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; evaluated in a real-world setting) were determined using Kaplan–Meier curves. Time to progression, excluding pts who died and were censored at death, was also estimated. HCRU included inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, and emergency visits. Results: Overall, 903 pts were included. Median age at la/mUC diagnosis was 70 y; 79.6% were men. Most (71.0%) had ≥1 comorbidity, most commonly cardiovascular disease (54.2%). Primary tumor sites were the bladder (83.7%), urethra (7.0%), and upper tract (6.6%). De novo la/mUC (41.9%) was the most common initial UC diagnosis. In the follow-up cohort (n = 829), median follow-up was 12.7 mo. Most (84.7% [n = 702]) pts received first-line (1L) systemic treatment; of these, 46.9% (n = 329) received second-line (2L) and 16.6% (n = 116) received third-line (3L) therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common treatment (1L: 77.8% [n = 546]; 2L: 49.8% [n = 164]; 3L: 74.1% [n = 86]), followed by PD-1/L1 inhibitors (1L: 28.3% [n = 199]; 2L: 47.7% [n = 157]; 3L: 19.0% [n = 22]). From index la/mUC diagnosis, estimated median (95% CI) OS was 18.8 (17.5–21.5), PFS was 9.9 (8.9–10.5), and time to progression was 12.7 (11.3–14.6) mo. From the start of 1L, 2L and 3L therapy, estimated median (95% CI) OS were 16.9 (14.3–18.9), 11.6 (9.6–14.3), and 9.9 (7.9–12.6) mo. For HCRU, 71.8% (n = 595) of pts had ≥1 outpatient visit (mean: 2.2/mo), 56.6% (n = 469) had ≥1 inpatient admission (0.4/mo; median duration: 8.0 d), and 56.5% (n = 468) had ≥1 emergency visit (0.4/mo). Conclusions: This retrospective study of university hospital data describes pt characteristics and real-world treatment patterns, survival, and HCRU for pts with la/mUC in Spain. Advances in immunotherapy are shifting the treatment landscape for targeted groups of pts with la/mUC, but a need remains for innovative treatments that could improve pt outcomes.