Aims: This project aimed to compare cancer survivors with rare/uncommon (R/U) diagnoses to those with more common cancers, across quality of life (QOL), psychological morbidity, and use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) across the cancer journey.

Methods: As part of a larger Australian, longitudinal online survey, 1,208 cancer survivors (52.8% of the larger community sample) completed demographic/health questions and various standardised measures at baseline including the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Spiritual Well-Being, Expanded (FACIT-Sp-Ex), the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS21), and use of 20 common CAMs for cancer-related issues.   

Results: Of all cancer survivors, 92 (7.6%) reported R/U cancers, 889 (73.6%) common cancers, and 227 (18.8%) did not report a diagnosis, so were excluded. Independent samples t-tests were used to compare R/U vs. common cancer groups across FACIT-Sp-Ex scores. No significant differences were found for Total QOL or Physical, Social/Family, Functional, or Spiritual Wellbeing subscales. However, survivors of R/U cancers showed slightly poorer Emotional Wellbeing compared to those with common diagnoses (p=.04, φ=.06). Similarly, across DASS21 subscales, the R/U group reported slightly elevated Stress (p=.02, φ=.08), and a similar pattern of increased Anxiety (p=.07), although there were no group differences for Depression. Across 20 common CAMs, the only chi-square test differences were that the R/U group reported significantly less use of Vitamins/Minerals (p=.003, φ=.10), Acupuncture (p=.002, φ=.10), Naturopathy (p=.02, φ=.07), and Massage (p=.03, φ=.07).         

Conclusions: This study identified very few differences between R/U and common cancer groups, highlighting greater similarities across survivors’ cancer journeys. Although those with less common diagnoses reported poorer emotional wellbeing, higher levels of stress, and less attraction to some CAM therapies (often sought to improve treatment outcomes and lower stress), group differences were small-to-negligible, perhaps highlighting that patients with R/U don’t identify as a niche group.