Rural Cancer Patients: Think Outside the Box

photo by Carol Duff

Health Editor’s Note:  A diagnosis of and then subsequent treatments for cancer can be devastating, but to make things worse, if you live in a rural area, you might not be getting the same access to care that someone who lives in a city receives. This difference in care has only to do with where you live, not the type of cancer you have or your lifestyle. Access to care is essential and whether you live in a city or in a remote area, you should have the same chances of successful diagnosis and treatment. 

The measure of increasing access to health insurance, easier access to oncology (cancer) specialists, increased access to screening and prevention tools, increasing the ability/ease to travel from rural areas or to travel long distances for reasonable care, and to make sure that rural candidates have access to clinical trials and new treatments are all ways to even the cancer fighting score.

I would add another improvement/initiative to decreasing the distance to cancer treatment to this article and that would be intense communications using Internet and phones/telecommunication would need to be increased with possible loaning/affordable sale of communication equipment to these newly diagnosed rural patients. Anyone who is diagnosed with cancer should be able to access the most-up-to date and effective treatments after the diagnosis of cancer and the preventative measures to hopefully alleviate a cancer diagnosis. This information can be a warning to those who live in rural areas and help you to attain the best care possible……Carol 

Rural Cancer Patients Have Poorer Outcomes

The disparity between rural and urban cancer patients is best explained by differences in access to care, not demographics or lifestyle factors, recent research suggests. Rural cancer patients generally have worse outcomes than their urban counterparts, and physician leaders seeking to address the disparity should boost access to care rather than focusing on other factors. A study published this month in JAMA Open Network found similar outcomes between rural and urban patients enrolled in clinical trials, which suggests lack of access to high-quality care in rural areas is the reason for the outcome disparity. “If rural and urban patients with cancer receiving similar care also have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best means by which to improve outcomes for rural patients with cancer may be to improve their access to quality care,” the researchers wrote.

The research examined mortality outcomes in 17 groupings of rural and urban cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. Mortality outcomes between the patients only varied in one grouping, with rural patients experiencing higher mortality for adjuvant-stage estrogen receptor–negative and progesterone receptor–negative breast cancer.

The research featured nearly 37,000 patients from across the country enrolled in clinical trials over a 26-year period. Closely reflecting national demographics, 19.4% of the patients were from rural areas. Clinical trials were the focal point of the research because they generally provide consistent high-quality care. “Patients receiving care in this setting are uniformly staged, treated, and followed up under protocol-specific guidelines, reducing the potential influences of inconsistent pretreatment evaluation, care, and post-treatment surveillance,” the researchers wrote.

Earlier research demonstrated a significant level of disparity in cancer mortality rates between rural and urban areas, with 180.4 cancer deaths per 100,000 people in rural areas compared to 157.8 cancer deaths per 100,000 in urban areas.

The JAMA Open Network researchers made five recommendations for physician leaders and healthcare organizations to address the disparity in cancer treatment outcomes between rural and urban patients:

Improve access to affordable health insurance

Expand access to screening and prevention tools

Boost access to oncology specialists

Increase transportation resources for rural patients who travel long distances to access quality care

Adopt innovation care networks to give rural patients access to new treatments and clinical trials

The researchers say two network models for oncology care—one in the United States and another in Australia—could help address the rural-urban cancer care disparity in this country: The National Cancer Institute’s National Community Oncology Research Program features access to clinical trials for community investigators and patients.

Australia’s Regional Cancer Centers of Excellence are designed to offer multidisciplinary care, boost support services, and increase clinical trial participation. This program has improved access to care, with increased treatment of rural patients in their communities.

All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. The late Linus Pauling, Ph.D. and Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D. in Canada successfully treated advanced cancer patients with high dose Vitamin C before both of their deaths. The powers that be, the Corrupt American Cancer Society and even many of the bigots in the medical doctor group, are totally ignorant of the benefits of high dose Vitamin C for cancer treatment. The problem is, taken by mouth ascorbic acid leaves the body in about two hours in the urine. In order to get a high enough dose into the bloodstream it is necessary to have it injected with appropriate vehicles prepared by a pharmacist like Vitamin B-12 shots. This would be a simple thing to do but is obstructed by the orthodoxy. No citizen, rural or otherwise can prepare such an injectible form of Vitamin C in a safe way. It is well known Vitamin C kills cancer cells without harming normal cells. The ascorbic acid is drawn into the cancer cell, forms hydrogen peroxide which kills the cell without harming normal cells. This information has been known long before the failed war on cancer even started. I urge Carol to read up on this knowledge and talk about it. Vitamin C is cheap, simple, safe and easily done oneself if the proper ampule is prepared for injection by a pharmacist. No one could or should do this on their own. The corrupt authorities have obstructed this knowledge.
    All higher animals manufacture their own Vitamin C; humans do not. This is why most of the animals don’t all die off. ..

    • Vitamin C is simple, safe and relatively inexpensive. But no ordinary citizen or patient is able to put it in an injectible form safe to human use. The medical orthodoxy is criminally responsible for this gross medical failure to all patients. All the corrupt FDA approves is a trivial 60 milligrams per day to prevent scurvy as if that were the only disease Vitamin C were good for. This is criminal. This is gross unprofessional misconduct by the authorities. The reason revolves around a five letter obscene word MONEY. I urge Carol and others to read the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients whose editor in chief is a top M.D. by the name of Jonathan Collin. They have many articles on this vital subject.
      Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D., Physics

    • About 20 years ago my wife was under a drug protocol for breast cancer by doctors at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. She did not want to move their for treatment so she had it here in Athens, GA, not a rural area. After one round of chemo, she developed a temperature of 105 and terrible abdominal pain. An emergency surgery to remove part of her colon was performed. She did not have colon cancer but breast cancer. She was on a ventilator in ICU for 11 days and nearly died. It cost $70,000 to keep her alive after the “treatment” nearly killed her. Her local doctor lied about it but doctors in Texas agreed the chemotherapy made a hole in her colin and allowed clostridium septicum bacteria to enter her bloodstream from which most patients die in 24 hours. After this near death from “treatment” she moved to Houston and lived over a year with no further incident because they are prepared for such emergencies and do not lie to patients about them. If you have cancer your best shot is MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston or Harvard in Cambridge.

    • Correction: Their above should read there.
      The total cost for her treatment was in excess of $300,000. This is the underlying problem with orthodox cancer treatment. It is all about money. If she had died, they would have told me, “sorry, we did our best.” They would have blamed it on the cancer when she would have died from the “treatment” which killed too many rapidly dividing cells in her digestive tract and made a literal hole there, allowing horrible bacteria clostrdium septicum to enter her bloodstream and lead to almost instant death in 24 hours. Local emergency room doctors are totally unprepared to deal with such emergencies caused by orthodox cancer treatment, mistreatment would be a more appropriate description. If she had been living in Houston when this occurred they would have been on top of the problem instantly and avoided such an emergency. This is why other less dangerous protocols like high dose Vitamin C must be approved for cancer treatment but won’t be so long a only corrupt medical doctors are in charge of trials and so called studies which can and ar faked.

Comments are closed.