Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2026

Real-world patient characteristics and treatment patterns in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (Ia/mUC) in Australia and Taiwan (144748)

Niara Oliveira 1 2 , Kyungah Park 3 , Marie Lou Camara 4 , David Nimke 5 , Alice Rouleau 6 , Ivana Sestak 7 , Li-Jen Cheng 3
  1. Mater Hospital Brisbane, Mater Misericordiae Ltd, Brisbane, Australia
  2. School of Clinical Medicine, Mater Clinical Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
  3. Astellas Pharma Singapore Pte. Ltd, Singapore, Singapore
  4. Astellas Pharma Australia Pty Ltd, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia
  5. Astellas Pharma Inc, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
  6. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ivry Sur Seine, France
  7. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Milan, Italy

Aims: Given the changes to the treatment landscape for la/mUC in Australia and Taiwan, real-world data on therapies used in clinical practice remain limited. This cross-sectional study describes treatment patterns for la/mUC.

Methods: Data were abstracted from medical charts by physicians in Australia and Taiwan and captured by the LiveInsighter platform (online survey) from March-August 2025. Included patients were ≥18 years old with a confirmed Ia/mUC diagnosis before data collection and no clinical trial enrolment. Main objectives were to describe demographic/clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of patients receiving first-line/second-line systemic therapy. Analyses were descriptive without between-country comparisons.

Results: Data from 321 patients (Australia: n=161; Taiwan: n=160) were included by 88 physicians (Australia: n=48; Taiwan: n=40). In Australia and Taiwan, 67.7% and 63.1% of patients were male, mean age was 69.1 and 67.3 years, and 89.4% and 81.3% had an ECOG PS score of 0-1, respectively. At data collection, 23.6% (n=38) and 45.3% (n=73) of patients in Australia, and 30.6% (n=49) and 40.0% (n=64) in Taiwan, were receiving first-line treatment or completed first-line therapy with/without maintenance, respectively. The most frequent first-line treatments in Australia were platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC; 81.6%), nivolumab+gemcitabine+cisplatin (7.9%), and pembrolizumab monotherapy (5.3%); 2.6% received enfortumab vedotin+pembrolizumab (EV+P). In Taiwan, these were PBC (59.2%) and EV+P (14.3%); 4.1% received nivolumab+gemcitabine+cisplatin and 2.0% received EV monotherapy. At data collection, 31.1% (n=50) and 29.4% (n=47) of patients in Australia and Taiwan, respectively, were receiving second-line treatment; the most frequent were EV monotherapy (40.0%) and pembrolizumab (30.0%) in Australia, and nivolumab (34.0%), EV+P (19.1%), and EV monotherapy (19.1%) in Taiwan.

Conclusions: PBC was the most common first-line treatment at data collection in Australia and Taiwan. Despite regulatory approval, EV+P uptake remained limited. These findings highlight differences between guideline-recommended strategies and treatment utilization, suggesting addressing barriers to treatment access may optimize patient care.