ArticleOncology and therapy2026
Qualitative Interviews on the Experience of Orally vs. Intramuscularly Administered Endocrine Therapy for Advanced Breast Cancer: Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives.
Article in Oncology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERD) have proven to be an effective treatment option for patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). The orally administered next-generation SERDs may be more tolerable and a preferred alternative to the intramuscularly (IM) administered fulvestrant. This study sought to identify patient and healthcare provider (HCP) perspectives on preferences, benefits, burdens, and ease of adherence of oral and IM endocrine therapy (ET).
methodsNon-interventional, qualitative interviews were conducted in the USA, among adult patients with ER+ HER2- ABC and oncology HCPs. Eligible patients and HCPs had experience with both oral ET and fulvestrant within the past 3 years. One-on-one semi-structured interviews lasted up to 60 min.
resultsWe interviewed 25 patients and 20 HCPs. The mean time from BC diagnosis was 12.6 years (standard deviation 8.4); 18 patients (72%) were currently receiving IM and 7 (28%) oral ET. Sixteen patients (64%) preferred oral ET, mainly owing to convenience (13/16, 81%), which was considered the main benefit (22/25, 88%); side effects were a common burden (18/25, 72%). Seven patients preferred IM ET, mainly owing to the monthly injection frequency (6/7, 85%). The primary benefit of IM ET was not having to remember daily dosing (12/22, 55%), and main burdens were injection pain (21/25, 84%) and travel to receive injection (14/22, 64%). Most patients (23/25, 92%) experienced ease of adherence to oral ET. HCPs perspectives were largely aligned to the patients' experiences.
conclusionPatients with ER+ HER2- ABC in this study preferred oral to IM ET owing to convenience, and disliked the pain associated with IM ET and travel to receive injections. Compared to IM fulvestrant, oral SERDs may offer an alternative with less burden on the lives of people living with cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.