Rare cancers and cancer of unknown primary: Here's what you should know!

Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre

BACKGROUND

Recently, molecular tumour boards (MTBs) have been integrated into the clinical routine. Since their benefit remains debated, we assessed MTB outcomes in the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ostbayern (CCCO) from 2019 to 2021.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In total, 251 patients were included. Targeted sequencing was performed with PCR MSI-evaluation and immunohistochemistry for PD-L1, Her2, and mismatch repair enzymes. 125 treatment recommendations were given (49.8%). High-recommendation rates were achieved for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (20/30, 66.7%) and gastric adenocarcinoma (10/16, 62.5%) as opposed to colorectal cancer (9/36, 25.0%) and pancreatic cancer (3/18, 16.7%). MTB therapies were administered in 47 (18.7%) patients, while 53 (21.1%) received alternative treatment regimens. Thus 37.6% of recommended MTB therapies were implemented (47/125 recommendations). The clinical benefit rate (complete + partial + mixed response + stable disease) was 50.0% for MTB and 63.8% for alternative treatments. PFS2/1 ratios were 34.6% and 16.1%, respectively. Significantly improved PFS could be achieved for m1A-tier-evidence-based MTB therapies (median 6.30 months) compared to alternative treatments (median 2.83 months; P = 0.0278).

CONCLUSION

The CCCO MTB yielded a considerable recommendation rate, particularly in cholangiocarcinoma patients. The discrepancy between the low-recommendation rates in colorectal and pancreatic cancer suggests the necessity of a weighted prioritisation of entities. High-tier recommendations should be implemented predominantly.

Quality of care and quality of life as experienced by patients with advanced cancer of a rare tumour type: results of the multicentre observational eQuiPe study

PURPOSE

Patients with a rare cancer face difficulties during their disease trajectory, such as delayed diagnosis and lack of expert care. However, little is known about their perceived quality of care (QoC) and quality of life (QoL) in the advanced disease stage. We aimed to assess the QoC and QoL as experienced by patients with advanced rare cancers compared to patients with advanced common cancers.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, baseline data of patients with advanced cancer from the multicentre, longitudinal, observational eQuipe study were analysed. Multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to assess differences in experienced QoC (continuity of care, continuity of information, and satisfaction with care) and QoL (functioning, symptoms, overall QoL, and social wellbeing) between advanced rare and common cancer patients.

RESULTS

Of the 1087 included patients, 106 (9.8%) had a rare cancer type. In comparison to patients with advanced common cancers, patients with advanced rare cancers experienced significantly lower continuity of care (77.8 vs. 71.1 respectively, p = 0.011) and social functioning (78.8 vs. 72.6 respectively, p = 0.012). No differences were found regarding continuity of information, satisfaction with care, overall QoL, and social wellbeing.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced rare cancers experience less continuity of care, and the impact of the disease on social and family life seems higher compared to patients with advanced common cancers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

To enhance the QoC and QoL of patients with advanced rare cancers, supportive care should mainly focus on improving continuity of care and patients' social functioning.

Psychological distress, understanding of cancer and illness uncertainty in patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary

OBJECTIVE

Patients diagnosed with Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) experience high levels of psychological distress and report poor understanding of their cancer. We aimed to investigate: (1) if CUP patients with poorer understanding of their cancer diagnosis and testing experience more symptoms of psychological distress than those with better understanding; (2) if the relationship between patients' understanding of their cancer and psychological distress is mediated by illness uncertainty; and (3) explore whether patients' degree of understanding of their cancer can be predicted by clinical and socio-demographic factors.

METHODS

209 CUP patients completed a questionnaire measuring anxiety, depression, illness uncertainty, fatigue, pain, sleep and understanding of their cancer. Using an apriori theoretical framework, we employed structural equation modelling to investigate predictors of patient's understanding of their cancer and psychological distress and the relationships between understanding, illness uncertainty and distress.

RESULTS

The structural equation model displayed good fit indices and supported the hypothesised relationship of patient's understanding of their cancer and the extent of psychological distress, which was mediated via illness uncertainty. Physical symptoms were positively associated with psychological distress and illness uncertainty. Younger age was predictive of lower patient's understanding of their cancer and higher levels of psychological distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CUP, particularly those who are younger and experiencing more physical symptoms, report higher levels of psychological distress and may require additional mental health support. Our findings highlight a need to improve CUP patient's understanding about their illness, which could help reduce their illness uncertainty and alleviate psychological distress.