Real-World Quantitative Insights into the Treatment Experience of Patients with Cancer in the USA with Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Drug Delivery

While oncology treatments have traditionally been delivered through the intravenous (IV) route of administration (ROA), subcutaneous (SC) alternatives have become increasingly available. Research comparing real-world patient experiences with these ROAs in the USA has been limited. This study aimed to quantify and compare preferences, satisfaction, and daily life impact between SC and IV delivery for patients with cancer in the USA experienced with both ROAs in a real-world setting.

Patients with cancer in the USA experienced with both SC and IV delivery were eligible to complete a 45-question web-based survey if they were at least 18 years of age, had a confirmed self-reported cancer diagnosis, and received both SC and IV treatment for the same condition within the past 24 months. The survey assessed treatment preferences, treatment site information, daily life impact, and feelings about potentially receiving at-home SC treatment. A free-response question was included to capture patient preferences in their own words.

Of 201 patients completing this survey, 89.6% of patients indicated a preference towards SC delivery and 5.5% towards IV. Patients were typically more satisfied-to-very satisfied with SC delivery (78.6%, 33.3% IV), often owing to a reduced treatment burden and improved independence, convenience, and ability to cope with their illness. Satisfaction with SC treatment was also greater across the variables of appointment travel time (53.7%, 30.3% IV) and total time at a treatment facility (67.7%, 30.3% IV). When asked about hypothetically receiving at-home SC injections, over 80% of patients perceived a potential benefit.

To our knowledge, this study was the first in the USA to survey real-world treatment preferences of patients with cancer experienced with both SC- and IV-delivered care. Findings demonstrated a strong overall preference towards SC delivery, providing valuable insights and highlighting the need to broaden treatment considerations to include patient perspectives.