Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39857946›Full record

ArticleCancers2025

An Evaluation of Rare Cancer Policies in Europe: A Survey Among Healthcare Providers.

Kostadin Kostadinov, Georgi Iskrov, Nina Musurlieva, Rumen Stefanov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A One Health Perspective on Cancer: A Narrative Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kostadin KostadinovDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.ORCID 0000-0003-1414-8738
Georgi IskrovDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.ORCID 0000-0002-0988-0062
Nina MusurlievaDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Rumen StefanovDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rare cancers, defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 individuals, are associated with significant health inequalities. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of healthcare providers with expertise in rare cancers regarding the effectiveness of enacted or planned rare cancer policies across Europe. Between 25 March 2023 and 5 March 2024, we conducted an online survey targeting 738 healthcare providers affiliated with the European Reference Networks and the Organization of European Cancer Institutes, yielding 92 complete responses from 28 European countries (response rate: 12.5%). While a significant portion of respondents were unaware of their country's legal definitions for rare cancers, 67.4% acknowledged that national cancer plans prioritized rare cancers. These plans received the highest ratings for their evidence-based interventions and monitoring efforts. The integration of rare cancer policies into broader oncology frameworks was the preferred policy model. National cancer registries were highly rated for confidentiality and validity but scored the lowest for cost-effectiveness. Government funding was deemed crucial for cancer screening programs. The disease burden and unmet health needs primarily influenced reimbursement decisions in the field of rare cancers. Respondents rated palliative care as more effective in adults with rare cancers compared to in children, particularly regarding symptom management. We confirmed significant variability in rare cancer policy evaluations across Europe, the necessity for a common EU-level definition for rare cancers, and a shift in reimbursement and policy framework models, highlighting the importance of policy integration and enhanced collaboration. However, given the limitations of the study, such as small sample size and possible unstudied confounding factors, we should interpret our findings with caution. A systematic policy review and multistakeholder assessment in the future could complement our results.

Indexed as

health policynational cancer planspalliative carerare cancerrare cancer policies

Identifiers

PMID39857946
PMCPMC11764363

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.