Travel burden associated with rare cancers: The example of Merkel cell carcinoma

Availability and Access to Orphan Drugs for Rare Cancers in Bulgaria: Analysis of Delays and Public Expenditures

Rare cancers are defined by an annual incidence of fewer than 6 per 100,000. Bearing similarities to rare diseases, they are associated with substantial health inequalities due to diagnostic complexity and delayed access to innovative therapies. This situation is further aggravated in Southeastern European countries like Bulgaria, where limited public resources and expertise underscore the need for additional policy and translational research on rare cancers. This study aimed to explore the availability and access to orphan drugs for rare cancers in Bulgaria for the period of 2020-2023. We cross-compared data from both the European Union and national public sources to evaluate the number of available and accessible orphan drugs for rare cancers, the delay from market authorization to reimbursement, the dynamics of public expenditures, and regional disparities in access across the country. We juxtaposed the main characteristics of oncological and non-oncological orphan drugs as well. Only 15 out of 50 oncological orphan drugs that were authorized by the European Medicine Agency were accessible for rare cancer patients in Bulgaria. The median delay between market authorization and inclusion in the Bulgarian Positive Drug List was 760 days. The total expenditures for all orphan drugs for rare cancers amounted to EUR 74,353,493 from 2020 to 2023. The budgetary impact of this group rose from 0.24% to 3.77% of total public medicinal product expenditures for the study period. Rare cancer patients represent a vulnerable population that often faces limited to no access to treatment. We call for targeted European and national policies to address this major inequality.

Choreographed expansion of services results in decreased patient burden without compromise of outcomes: An assessment of the Ontario experience

Background

Neuro-oncology care in Ontario, Canada has been historically centralized, at times requiring significant travel on the part of patients. Toward observing the goal of patient-centered care and reducing patient burden, 2 additional regional cancer centres (RCC) capable of neuro-oncology care delivery were introduced in 2016. This study evaluates the impact of increased regionalization of neuro-oncology services, from 11 to 13 oncology centers, on healthcare utilization and travel burden for glioblastoma (GBM) patients in Ontario.

Methods

We present a cohort of GBM patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Incidence of GBM and treatment modalities were identified using provincial health administrative databases. A geographic information system and spatial analysis were used to estimate travel time from patient residences to neuro-oncology RCCs.

Results

Among the 5242 GBM patients, 79% received radiation as part of treatment. Median travel time to the closest RCC was higher for patients who did not receive radiation as part of treatment than for patients who did (P = .03). After 2016, the volume of patients receiving radiation at their local RCC increased from 62% to 69% and the median travel time to treatment RCCs decreased (P = .0072). The 2 new RCCs treated 35% and 41% of patients within their respective catchment areas. Receipt of standard of care, surgery, and chemoradiation (CRT), increased by 11%.

Conclusions

Regionalization resulted in changes in the healthcare utilization patterns in Ontario consistent with decreased patient travel burden for patients with GBM. Focused regionalization did not come at the cost of decreased quality of care, as determined by the delivery of a standard of care.

Distance Traveled by Patients Globally to Access Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the travel patterns of patients seeking radiation therapy globally. It examined the distance patients travel for radiation therapy as well as secondary outcomes, including travel time.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A comprehensive search of 4 databases was conducted from June 2022 to August 2022. Studies were included in the review if they were observational, retrospective, randomized/nonrandomized, published between June 2000 and June 2022, and if they reported on the global distance traveled for radiation therapy in the treatment of malignant or benign disease. Studies were excluded if they did not report travel distance or were not written in English.

RESULTS

Of the 168 studies, most were conducted in North America (76.3%), with 90.7% based in the United States. Radiation therapy studies for treating patients with breast cancer were the most common (26.6%), while external beam radiation therapy was the most prevalent treatment modality (16.6%). Forty-six studies reported the mean distance traveled for radiation therapy, with the shortest being 4.8 miles in the United States and the longest being 276.5 miles in Iran. It was observed that patients outside of the United States traveled greater distances than those living within the United States. Geographic location, urban versus rural residence, and patient population characteristics affected the distance patients traveled for radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides the most extensive summary to date of the travel patterns of patients seeking radiation therapy globally. The results suggest that various factors may contribute to the variability in travel distance patterns, including treatment center location, patient residence, and treatment modality. Overall, the study highlights the need for more research to explore these factors and to develop effective strategies for improving radiation therapy access and reducing travel burden.

The interaction of rurality and rare cancers for travel time to cancer care

PURPOSE

Geographic access to cancer care is known to significantly impact utilization and outcomes. Longer travel times have negative impacts for patients requiring highly specialized care, such as for rare cancers, and for those in rural areas. Scant population-based research informs geographic access to care for rare cancers and whether rurality impacts that access.

METHODS

Using Medicare data (2014-2015), we identified prevalent cancers and cancer-directed surgeries, chemotherapy, and radiation. We classified cancers as rare (incidence <6/100,000/year) or common (incidence ≥6/100,000/year) using previously published thresholds and categorized rurality from ZIP code of beneficiary residence. We estimated travel time between beneficiaries and providers for each service based on ZIP code. Descriptive statistics summarized travel time by rare versus common cancers, service type, and rurality.

FINDINGS

We included 1,169,761 Medicare beneficiaries (21.9% in nonmetropolitan areas), 87,399; 7.5% had rare cancers, with 9,133,003 cancer-directed services. Travel times for cancer services ranged from approximately 29 minutes (25th percentile) to 68 minutes (75th percentile). Travel times were similar for rare and common cancers overall (median: 45 vs 43 minutes) but differed by service type; 13.4% of surgeries were >2 hours away for rare cancers, compared to 8.3% for common cancers. Increasing rurality disproportionately increased travel time to surgical care for rare compared to common cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Travel times to cancer services are longest for surgery, especially among rural residents, yet not markedly longer overall between rare versus common cancers. Understanding geographic access to cancer care for patients with rare cancers is important to delivering specialized care.

Rare cancer and return to work: experiences and needs of patients and (health care) professionals

PURPOSE

Patients with a rare cancer often face delays in their diagnostic and treatment trajectory, which may affect their work. In this study, we explored experiences and needs of: 1) patients with a rare cancer regarding return to work (RTW) and work retention, and 2) (health care) professionals (HCPs) regarding work-related support of patients with a rare cancer, throughout their disease trajectory.

METHODS

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with working-age patients with a rare cancer (n = 16), and HCPs (n = 9) were conducted. During the interviews, a predefined topic list was used. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by means of thematic analysis.

RESULTS

In total, three themes emerged from the interviews: 1) Awareness in patients and HCPs as a first step towards work, 2) Being/becoming an expert is a tough job, and 3) Enhancing employability through early personalized guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a rare cancer are confronted with uncertainties regarding work, due to an overall lack of knowledge and experience with these types of cancer. Raising awareness among patients, HCPs and employers about rare cancer and its implications, and providing timely individualized, supportive occupational care are required to improve rare cancer patients' ability to work.Implications for rehabilitationRecognizing and paying attention to the work-related consequences of a rare cancer diagnosis and its treatment is essential to facilitate rare cancer patients' occupational rehabilitation process.Multidisciplinary collaboration and involvement of HCPs specialized in rare cancer are required to provide suitable work-related support.A personalized approach is necessary to adequately address rare cancer patients' RTW and work retention needs.

Differences in health care experiences between rare cancer and common cancer patients: results from a national cross-sectional survey

Background

Patients with rare cancers face challenges in the diagnostic and treatment phase, and in access to clinical expertise. Since studies on health care experiences of these patients in comparison to patients with more common cancers are scarce, we aimed to explore these differences.

Methods

Data were cross-sectionally collected among (former) adult cancer patients through a national online survey in the Netherlands (October 2019). Descriptive statistics were reported and subgroups (rare vs. common patients) were compared.

Results

In total, 7343 patients (i.e., 1856 rare and 5487 common cancer patients) participated. Rare cancer patients were more often diagnosed and treated in different hospitals compared to common cancer patients (67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001). Rare cancer patients received treatment more often in a single hospital (60% vs. 57%, p = 0.014), but reported more negative experiences when treated in multiple hospitals than common cancer patients (14% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). They also more often received advise from their physician about the hospital to go to for a second opinion (50% vs. 36%, p < 0.001), were more likely to choose a hospital specialized in their cancer type (33% vs. 22%, p < 0.001), and were more willing to travel as long as necessary to receive specialized care than common cancer patients (55% vs. 47%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Rare and common cancer patients differ in their health care experiences. Health care for rare cancer patients can be further improved by proper referral to centers of expertise and building a clinical network specifically for rare cancers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-021-01886-2.

Influence of travel burden on tumor classification and survival of head and neck cancer patients

PURPOSE

Cancer patients have to overcome various barriers to obtain diagnostics and treatment at head and neck cancer centers. Travel distance to a specialized hospital may result in psychosocial and financial distress, thus interfering with diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up care. In this study, we have aimed to analyze the association of travel distance with cTNM status, UICC stage at primary diagnosis, and survival outcomes of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.

METHODS

We have analyzed data of 1921 consecutive HNC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2019 at the head and neck cancer center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm (CCCU), Germany. Postal code-based travel distance calculation in kilometers, TNM status, and UICC stage were recorded at initial diagnosis. The assembly of travel distance-related groups (short, intermediate, long-distance) has been investigated. Moreover, group-related survival and recurrence analysis have been performed.

RESULTS

In contrast to observations from overseas, no association of travel distance and higher cTNM status or UICC stage at primary diagnosis has been observed. Furthermore, no significant differences for recurrence-free survival and overall survival by travel distance were detected.

CONCLUSION

In southern Germany, travel distance to head and neck cancer centers seems to be tolerable. Travel burden is not synonymous with travel distance alone but also involves sociodemographic, monetary, and disease-specific aspects as well as accessibility to proper infrastructure of transport and health care system.

The Volume-Outcome Relationship and Traveling for Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery: A Quantitative Analysis of Patient Perspectives

Despite the well-established relationship between volume and outcomes, patients continue to have procedures performed at low-volume hospitals. The factors patients use to make the complex decision of where to have hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery remain poorly characterized. A novel survey instrument was administered to all patients who had undergone HPB surgery at two university-affiliated community hospitals. 76 patients participated in the study (89% response rate). The majority of patients were unaware of the volume-outcome relationship (58.8%). No demographic factors differed between patients who were or were not aware except for patient research. Physician factors were the most important selection category (64.4%). Only 28.9% of patients were willing to travel more than two hours to have an operation performed at a hospital with a high volume/improved quality. Despite many voices calling for regionalization, patient decision-making factors should be considered before any realistic implementation.

Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma: analysis of 1024 patients from 43 African countries and 518 patients from 40 European countries

BACKGROUND

The travel distance from home to a treatment centre, which may impact the stage at diagnosis, has not been investigated for retinoblastoma, the most common childhood eye cancer. We aimed to investigate the travel burden and its impact on clinical presentation in a large sample of patients with retinoblastoma from Africa and Europe.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis including 518 treatment-naïve patients with retinoblastoma residing in 40 European countries and 1024 treatment-naïve patients with retinoblastoma residing in 43 African countries.

RESULTS

Capture rate was 42.2% of expected patients from Africa and 108.8% from Europe. African patients were older (95% CI -12.4 to -5.4, p<0.001), had fewer cases of familial retinoblastoma (95% CI 2.0 to 5.3, p<0.001) and presented with more advanced disease (95% CI 6.0 to 9.8, p<0.001); 43.4% and 15.4% of Africans had extraocular retinoblastoma and distant metastasis at the time of diagnosis, respectively, compared to 2.9% and 1.0% of the Europeans. To reach a retinoblastoma centre, European patients travelled 421.8 km compared to Africans who travelled 185.7 km (p<0.001). On regression analysis, lower-national income level, African residence and older age (p<0.001), but not travel distance (p=0.19), were risk factors for advanced disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than half the expected number of patients with retinoblastoma presented to African referral centres in 2017, suggesting poor awareness or other barriers to access. Despite the relatively shorter distance travelled by African patients, they presented with later-stage disease. Health education about retinoblastoma is needed for carers and health workers in Africa in order to increase capture rate and promote early referral.

Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on Care for Rare Cancers

PURPOSE

Many patients with cancer, often those with rare cancers such as sarcomas, travel long distances to access expert care. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated widespread changes in delivery of cancer care, including rapid adoption of telemedicine-based care. We aimed to evaluate the impact of telemedicine on patients, clinicians, and care delivery at the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) Sarcoma Unit during the pandemic.

METHODS

Data were extracted from patient records for all planned outpatient appointments at the RMH Sarcoma Unit from March 23 to April 24, 2020. Patients and clinicians completed separate questionnaires to understand their experiences.

RESULTS

Of 379 planned face-to-face appointments, 283 (75%) were converted to telemedicine. Face-to-face appointments remained for patients who needed urgent start of therapy or performance status assessment. Patients lived on average > 1.5 hours from RMH. Patient satisfaction (n = 108) with telemedicine was high (mean, 9/10), and only 48% (n = 52/108) would not want to hear bad news using telemedicine. Clinicians found telemedicine efficient, with no associated increased workload, compared with face-to-face appointments. Clinicians indicated lack of physical examination did not often affect care provision when using telemedicine. Most clinicians (n = 17; 94%) believed telemedicine use was practice changing; congruently, 80% (n = 86/108) of patients desired some telemedicine as part of their future care, citing reduced cost and travel time.

CONCLUSION

Telemedicine can revolutionize delivery of cancer care, particularly for patients with rare cancers who often live far away from expert centers. Our study demonstrates important patient and clinician benefits; assessment of longer-term impact on patient outcomes and health care systems is needed.

Driving innovation for rare skin cancers: utilizing common tumours and machine learning to predict immune checkpoint inhibitor response

Metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are rare and both show impressive responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. However, at least 40% of patients do not respond to these expensive and potentially toxic drugs. Development of predictive biomarkers of response and rational, effective combination treatment strategies in these rare, often frail patient populations is challenging. This review discusses the pathophysiology and treatment of MCC and cSCC, with a particular focus on potential biomarkers of response to immunotherapy, and discusses how transfer learning using big data collected from patients with common tumours can be used in combination with deep phenotyping of rare tumours to develop predictive biomarkers and elucidate novel treatment targets.

•

Metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma are rare tumours.

•

Immunotherapy gives impressive responses but most patients do not survive long term.

•

Small patient numbers prevent extensive biomarker research in clinical trials.

•

Pooled data from common and rare tumours can be used to train neural networks.

•

In rare cancers, neural networks can help identify biomarkers and novel treatment targets.

Travel burden associated with rare cancers: The example of Merkel cell carcinoma

Background

There are limited data on the travel burden for cancer patients with rare tumor types, such as Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).

Objective

The objective of this study was to understand the travel burden of MCC patients.

Methods

This study used data from an MCC registry at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA). All MCC patients enrolled at SCCA with a valid 3‐digit ZIP code were included. Patients were followed up from January 1, 2012 until their last follow‐up, death, or end of data (January 1, 2017). Travel burden was measured by one‐way travel distance to SCCA from each patient's 3‐digit ZIP code. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and follow‐up visit were evaluated and stratified by one‐way driving distance of ≤300 and >300 miles.

Results

A total of 391 MCC patients were included (68% men, mean age = 67 years [±SD = ±11 years], 67% residing in the West, and 70% white). At diagnosis, 53% of the patients had Stage III or IV MCC. Mean one‐way distance traveled by patients was 1,137 (median: 813) miles, and 57% of patients traveled >300 miles. Compared to patients who traveled ≤300 miles, those who traveled >300 miles were more likely to be <70 years old (46% vs 65%; P < 0.001), were diagnosed with advanced stage (III or IV) MCC (46% vs 59%; P = 0.01), had shorter follow‐up in the cancer registry (mean: 509 vs 212 days; P < 0.001), and had fewer visits during follow‐up (mean: 5.2 vs 2.5; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this single cancer center study, the majority of MCC patients trav‐eled long distances to receive expert care. Longer travel distances appeared to be associated with younger age, a more advanced stage of cancer at study entry and fewer in‐clinic visits, suggesting that travel burden may impact timely and adequate patient care for this rare cancer.