Skip to content
Triangle logo TriangleGet started
← Full study record

NCT03735121 · OUTCOME

Part 2: Percentage of HCPs by Their Response to Question 3 of the HCP SC Versus IV Perspective Questionnaire

A Study to Investigate Atezolizumab Subcutaneous in Patients With Previously Treated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer · Source last updated 2025-12-05

Results reported by the registry submitting party. Population, time horizon, units and missing values must be read together.

Measure
NUMBER
Unit
percentage of HCPs
Interval / dispersion
Not reported
Time frame
After HCP has completed administering at least 3 doses of atezolizumab SC and IV across all participants in Part 2 (Up to approximately 48 months)

What was measured

The HCP SC versus IV Perspective Questionnaire consisted of five items evaluating the number of atezolizumab SC and IV administrations done, convenience, potential time savings, and overall satisfaction with atezolizumab SC and atezolizumab IV, as well as reasons for HCP-reported satisfaction or dissatisfaction. HCPs who administered at least three doses of atezolizumab as an IV infusion and as a SC injection across all participants in Part 2 of this study responded to this questionnaire, of which question 3 is being reported here: Question 3: If used in routine practice, do you think administering atezolizumab SC could save staff time compared to atezolizumab IV? The responses to this question could be Yes; No; Unsure. HCPs were allowed to complete the questionnaire until the last participant completed their assessments (duration between the 'FPI in' date to 'LPLV' for Part 2).

Analysis population: Overall number analyzed included HCPs who completed Question 3 of the questionnaire.

Groups in this outcome

Part 2: Atezolizumab IV/Atezolizumab SC

Participants received atezolizumab, 1200 mg, as an IV infusion, Q3W, or atezolizumab, 1875 mg, co-formulated with rHuPH20, as SC injection, on Day 1 of each cycle (1 cycle=21 days) until PD, loss of clinical benefit, or unacceptable toxicity. HCPs who administered the IV or SC formulations completed the HCP SC versus IV Perspective Questionnaire.

Group identifiers and denominators belong to this outcome only. They may differ in another outcome or in safety reporting.

Analysis denominator · Participants

GroupSource count
Part 2: Atezolizumab IV/Atezolizumab SC50

Reported measurements

Yes
Values in percentage of HCPs · Interval/dispersion: Not reported
GroupValueSpreadLowerUpperComment
Part 2: Atezolizumab IV/Atezolizumab SC74.0Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
Unsure
Values in percentage of HCPs · Interval/dispersion: Not reported
GroupValueSpreadLowerUpperComment
Part 2: Atezolizumab IV/Atezolizumab SC14.0Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
No
Values in percentage of HCPs · Interval/dispersion: Not reported
GroupValueSpreadLowerUpperComment
Part 2: Atezolizumab IV/Atezolizumab SC12.0Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
Complete source fields
classes
  1. categories
    1. measurements
      1. group Id
        OG000
        value
        74.0
    title
    Yes
  2. categories
    1. measurements
      1. group Id
        OG000
        value
        14.0
    title
    Unsure
  3. categories
    1. measurements
      1. group Id
        OG000
        value
        12.0
    title
    No
denoms
  1. counts
    1. group Id
      OG000
      value
      50
    units
    Participants
description
The HCP SC versus IV Perspective Questionnaire consisted of five items evaluating the number of atezolizumab SC and IV administrations done, convenience, potential time savings, and overall satisfaction with atezolizumab SC and atezolizumab IV, as well as reasons for HCP-reported satisfaction or dissatisfaction. HCPs who administered at least three doses of atezolizumab as an IV infusion and as a SC injection across all participants in Part 2 of this study responded to this questionnaire, of which question 3 is being reported here: Question 3: If used in routine practice, do you think administering atezolizumab SC could save staff time compared to atezolizumab IV? The responses to this question could be Yes; No; Unsure. HCPs were allowed to complete the questionnaire until the last participant completed their assessments (duration between the 'FPI in' date to 'LPLV' for Part 2).
groups
  1. description
    Participants received atezolizumab, 1200 mg, as an IV infusion, Q3W, or atezolizumab, 1875 mg, co-formulated with rHuPH20, as SC injection, on Day 1 of each cycle (1 cycle=21 days) until PD, loss of clinical benefit, or unacceptable toxicity. HCPs who administered the IV or SC formulations completed the HCP SC versus IV Perspective Questionnaire.
    id
    OG000
    title
    Part 2: Atezolizumab IV/Atezolizumab SC
param Type
NUMBER
population Description
Overall number analyzed included HCPs who completed Question 3 of the questionnaire.
reporting Status
POSTED
time Frame
After HCP has completed administering at least 3 doses of atezolizumab SC and IV across all participants in Part 2 (Up to approximately 48 months)
title
Part 2: Percentage of HCPs by Their Response to Question 3 of the HCP SC Versus IV Perspective Questionnaire
type
SECONDARY
unit Of Measure
percentage of HCPs

Download exact source JSON → · Snapshot ctgov-results-191f4516d4760045304b24a0

Preserved source evidence · Not medical advice