Patient-Reported Burden of a Neuroendocrine Tumor (NET) Diagnosis: Results From the First Global Survey of Patients With NETs

Simron Singh, Dan Granberg, Edward Wolin, Richard Warner, Maia Sissons, Teodora Kolarova, Grace Goldstein, Marianne Pavel, Kjell Öberg, John Leyden, Simron Singh, Dan Granberg, Edward Wolin, Richard Warner, Maia Sissons, Teodora Kolarova, Grace Goldstein, Marianne Pavel, Kjell Öberg, John Leyden

Abstract

Purpose: Despite the considerable impact of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) on patients' daily lives, the journey of the patient with a NET has rarely been documented, with published data to date being limited to small qualitative studies. NETs are heterogeneous malignancies with nonspecific symptomology, leading to extensive health care use and diagnostic delays that affect survival. A large, international patient survey was conducted to increase understanding of the experience of the patient with a NET and identify unmet needs, with the aim of improving disease awareness and care worldwide.

Methods: An anonymous, self-reported survey was conducted (online or on paper) from February to May 2014, recruiting patients with NETs from > 12 countries as a collaboration between the International Neuroendocrine Cancer Alliance and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Survey questions captured information on sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, NET diagnostic experience, disease impact/management, interaction with medical teams, NET knowledge/awareness, and sources of information. This article reports the most relevant findings on patient experience with NETs and the impact of NETs on health care system resources.

Results: A total of 1,928 patients with NETs participated. A NET diagnosis had a substantially negative impact on patients' personal and work lives. Patients reported delayed diagnosis and extensive NET-related health care resource use. Patients desired improvement in many aspects of NET care, including availability of a wider range of NET-specific treatment options, better access to NET experts or specialist centers, and a more knowledgeable, better-coordinated/-aligned NET medical team.

Conclusion: This global patient-reported survey demonstrates the considerable burden of NETs with regard to symptoms, work and daily life, and health care resource use, and highlights considerable unmet needs. Further intervention is required to improve the patient experience among those with NETs.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and contributions are found at the end of this article.The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/site/ifc. Simron SinghHonoraria: Novartis, Pfizer, Ipsen Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Pfizer, IpsenDan GranbergNo relationship to discloseEdward WolinHonoraria: Novartis, Ipsen, Celgene, Advanced Accelerator Applications Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Ipsen, Celgene, Advanced Accelerator ApplicationsRichard WarnerHonoraria: Novartis, Pfizer, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Research Funding: Lexicon PharmaceuticalsMaia SissonsResearch Funding: Novartis, Ipsen, PfizerTeodora KolarovaNo relationship to discloseGrace GoldsteinCOO of The Carcinoid Cancer Foundation, Inc.; reports that the Foundation has received grants from Novartis, Ipsen, Advanced Accelerator Applications, and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: NovartisMarianne PavelHonoraria: Ipsen, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer Research Funding: Novartis Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen, NovartisKjell ÖbergNo relationship to discloseJohn LeydenPresident of the Unicorn Foundation; reports that the Foundation has received support from Novartis Australia, Pfizer Australia, and Ipsen

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
(A) The number of health care professionals (HCPs) seen before receiving a neuroendocrine tumor (NET) diagnosis. Base population: all respondents (N = 1,928). Question: Approximately how many HCPs (including all doctors, specialists, and nurses) were involved in your diagnosis of a NET? Please consider all those you saw from the time you first experienced symptoms to the time you received the diagnosis of a NET. (B) The number of health care visits made before receiving a neuroendocrine tumor (NET) diagnosis. Base population: all respondents (N = 1,928). Question: Approximately how many different visits to HCPs (including all doctors, specialists, and nurses) did you have to make? Please consider all those you saw from the time you first experienced symptoms to the time you received the diagnosis of a NET.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) symptoms experienced, often on a daily basis. Base population: all respondents (n values as indicated in figure). Questions: Which of the following symptoms, if any, do you suffer from as a result of your NET? Select all that apply. How frequently do you suffer from each of the following symptoms as a result of your NET?
Fig 3
Fig 3
(A) Negative impact of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) on daily life. Base: all respondents (N = 1,928). Question: How much has each of the following areas of your life been negatively affected, if at all, by your NET? Top two box scores are shown (a moderate amount/a lot). (B) Lifestyle changes caused by having a NET. Base: all respondents (N = 1,928). Question: Since you were diagnosed with your NET, have you had to make any of the following changes? Please select all that apply. (C) Impact of NETs on work life. *For example, flexible work schedule, work from home, adaptive devices, opportunities for rest. Base population: respondents who are working full time/part time or are self-employed (n = 741). Question: Has your NET impacted you at work in any of the following ways? Please select all that apply. HCP, health care professional.
Fig 4
Fig 4
Patients’ beliefs regarding improvements that would help with ongoing neuroendocrine tumor (NET) management. Base population: all respondents (N = 1,928). Question: Which of the following would help with the ongoing management of your NET?

References

    1. Öberg KE. Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 7):vii72–vii80.
    1. Vinik AI, Woltering EA, Warner RR, et al. NANETS consensus guidelines for the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumor. Pancreas. 2010;39:713–734.
    1. Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, et al. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: Epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3063–3072.
    1. Korse CM, Taal BG, van Velthuysen MLF, et al. Incidence and survival of neuroendocrine tumours in the Netherlands according to histological grade: Experience of two decades of cancer registry. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1975–1983.
    1. Hallet J, Law CH, Cukier M, et al. Exploring the rising incidence of neuroendocrine tumors: A population-based analysis of epidemiology, metastatic presentation, and outcomes. Cancer. 2015;121:589–597.
    1. Ito T, Sasano H, Tanaka M, et al. Epidemiological study of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in Japan. J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:234–243.
    1. Tsai HJ, Wu CC, Tsai CR, et al. The epidemiology of neuroendocrine tumors in Taiwan: A nation-wide cancer registry-based study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e62487.
    1. Oberg K, Castellano D. Current knowledge on diagnosis and staging of neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2011;30(suppl 1):3–7.
    1. Rindi G, Klöppel G, Couvelard A, et al. TNM staging of midgut and hindgut (neuro) endocrine tumors: A consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch. 2007;451:757–762.
    1. Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumours Treatment (PDQ®). .
    1. Modlin IM, Moss SF, Gustafsson BI, et al. The archaic distinction between functioning and nonfunctioning neuroendocrine neoplasms is no longer clinically relevant. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011;396:1145–1156.
    1. Boudreaux JP, Klimstra DS, Hassan MM, et al. The NANETS consensus guideline for the diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine tumors: Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the jejunum, ileum, appendix, and cecum. Pancreas. 2010;39:753–766.
    1. Metz DC, Choi J, Strosberg J, et al. A rationale for multidisciplinary care in treating neuroendocrine tumours. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2012;19:306–313.
    1. Beaumont JL, Zhimei L, Choi S, et al: Health-related quality of life of patients with neuroendocrine tumor compared to the United States general population. Pancreas 39:271, 2010 (abstr)
    1. Feinberg Y, Law C, Singh S, et al. Patient experiences of having a neuroendocrine tumour: A qualitative study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17:541–545.
    1. Griffiths J, Willard C, Burgess A, et al. Meeting the ongoing needs of survivors of rarer cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2007;11:434–441.
    1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement: IHI Triple Aim Initiative. .
    1. Browne K, Roseman D, Shaller D, et al. Analysis & commentary. Measuring patient experience as a strategy for improving primary care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:921–925.
    1. Haugland T, Vatn MH, Veenstra M, et al. Health related quality of life in patients with neuroendocrine tumors compared with the general Norwegian population. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:719–726.
    1. Beaumont JL, Cella D, Phan AT, et al. Comparison of health-related quality of life in patients with neuroendocrine tumors with quality of life in the general US population. Pancreas. 2012;41:461–466.
    1. Weaver KE, Forsythe LP, Reeve BB, et al. Mental and physical health-related quality of life among U.S. cancer survivors: Population estimates from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:2108–2117.
    1. Clancy CM. How patient-centered healthcare can improve quality. .
    1. Committee on Quality Healthcare in America, Institute of America: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. 1-360, 2015. .
    1. Berwick DM. A user’s manual for the IOM’s ‘Quality Chasm’ report. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:80–90.
    1. Singh S, Law C. Multidisciplinary reference centers: The care of neuroendocrine tumors. J Oncol Pract. 2010;6:e11–e16.
    1. Rinke A, Müller HH, Schade-Brittinger C, et al. Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: A report from the PROMID Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4656–4663.
    1. Caplin ME, Pavel M, Ćwikła JB, et al. Lanreotide in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:224–233.
    1. Yao JC, Fazio N, Singh S, et al. Everolimus for the treatment of advanced, non-functional neuroendocrine tumours of the lung or gastrointestinal tract (RADIANT-4): A randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;387:968–977.
    1. Yao JC, Shah MH, Ito T, et al. Everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:514–523.
    1. Pavel ME, Hainsworth JD, Baudin E, et al. Everolimus plus octreotide long-acting repeatable for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumours associated with carcinoid syndrome (RADIANT-2): A randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2011;378:2005–2012.
    1. Raymond E, Dahan L, Raoul JL, et al. Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:501–513.
    1. Strosberg J, Wolin E, Chasen B, et al: 177-Lu-Dotatate significantly improves progression-free survival in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumours: Results of the phase III NETTER-1 trial. Presented at: European Cancer Congress 2015, Vienna, Austria, September 25-29, 2015 (abstr 6LBA)
    1. Davies E, Cleary PD. Hearing the patient’s voice? Factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:428–432.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir