Cohort study reveals consistent treatment patterns and survival in de novo HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, indicating equitable regional care.
Background Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapy has improved survival in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Real-world practice may differ across oncologic networks, even within countries with uniform treatment guidelines. We assessed regional variation in first-line treatment and overall survival (OS) among patients with de novo HER2-positive MBC in the Netherlands in 2013-2023. Patients and methods Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were analysed. The registry includes seven regions, anonymised as A-G. Crude regional proportions of first-line HER2-targeted therapy were described. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied, with region as the exposure. Risk ratios for receiving HER2-targeted therapy were estimated using IPTW-adjusted Poisson regression. OS was analysed using the Kaplan–Meier method and IPTW-adjusted Cox regression, additionally adjusting for baseline covariates and first-line treatment. Results Among 2158 patients, use of first-line HER2-targeted therapy ranged from 70% (region F) to 88% (region C). After adjustment, no regional differences were observed ( P ≥ 0.05), except for patients in region C, who were more likely to receive HER2-targeted therapy versus those in region A (risk ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.16, P = 0.01). Observed median OS ranged from 42.8 months (region A) to 74.9 months (region B). After adjustment, no statistically significant regional differences in OS were observed. Regions B and E showed borderline longer OS versus region A (hazard ratio 0.77 and 0.77, P = 0.06 and 0.07, respectively). Conclusions No large regional differences in first-line HER2-targeted therapy were observed among de novo HER2-positive MBC patients in the Netherlands. The observed regional OS difference could largely be explained by differences in baseline patient characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ding et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: