Salford: Woman fights for NHS cancer drug

A woman terminally ill with kidney cancer could now be given a drug which could prolong her life, after a High Court ruling - reports ITV News.

Sutent has not yet been approved by the government and is not automatically available on the NHS.

Jean Murphy, a 62-year-old grandmother from Salford, had twice been denied the drug by Salford Primary Care Trust on the grounds that it is too expensive.

Dr Mike Burrows from the trust said before the ruling: "We have a limited amount of resources and have to make decisions on which treatments we are prepared to fund and which we cannot fund. We have to use health economics to support those decisions."

Ruling on the case, Mr Justice Burnett said the Trust's commissioning panel had failed to consider Mrs Murphy's application "in the round", and to take into account her day-to-day responsibility for caring for her husband who has a heart condition and diabetes.

This is yet another example of how the abject waste of £115 million a week paid to the audit-failing European Union - an unjustifiable 63% increase on the annual amount Britain paid between 2001-06 - is causing real suffering and shortfalls in essential public services.

In particular, Salford MP Hazel Blears needs to explain why she voted to approve paying this extra money to the EU while her local hospital clearly cannot provide services her constituents need, and blame a "limited amount of resources".

With public finances tightening, we can no longer afford to hand over so much money to the European Union. Especially as the "majority" of the EU's spending has not been approved by auditors for 13 years running, and there are so many reports of waste and fraud - going on even within EU institutions themselves.

Evidence continues to grow that it's time to Stop the Cheques to the EU.

Norfolk: Retired fireman loses battle for cancer drug

A retired fireman has suffered a setback in his battle to win funding for a cancer drug, reports the Eastern Daily Press.

Liver cancer patient Barry Humphrey has lost an appeal for a £5,000 trial for a drug aimed at buying him more time.

His upset wife Hazel says health bosses have “sentenced him to an early death” though their latest decision.

After 25 years service saving lives as a fireman in London, Mr Humphrey developed a rare cancer, triggered by hepatitis caught from a casualty during a rescue.

But officials at NHS Norfolk have decided not to fund treatment recommended by his consultant, saying Mr Humphrey's case fails to meet national cost-effectiveness guidelines on new drugs.

The couple, from Kimberley Road, are now seeing if there is anywhere else they can take their fight.

Funding the two-month trial treatment themselves was a last option - but they were reluctant having been told they would be opting out of the NHS, resulting in them having to pick up all treatment costs.

Fewer than 5% of liver cancer patients survive more than five years, so time is not on the Humphreys' side without some kind of treatment. And Barry says his consultants believe there are no other alternative drugs.

NHS Norfolk medical director Bryan Heap said treatment funding decisions were taken on clinical rather than social circumstances, so Mr Humphrey's past as an exemplary citizen unfortunately could not be taken into consideration.

The cost of Sorafenib, along with administration, extra scans and follow-up was £150,000 a year, and trials indicated an increase in life expectancy of 12 weeks, with no cure or reduction of symptoms.

Guidelines recommended not funding a new drug if the figure was greater than £30,000, he added.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrats health spokesman who has been backing Mr Humphrey's battle, said he was “horrified” by the appeal refusal, and would be seeking to meet a senior official from NHS Norfolk to argue the case.

Kidney cancer man's drugs fight

A man with kidney cancer says he has been refused a drug that could save his life and is still waiting for treatment 18 months after being diagnosed - reports the BBC.

Jocelyn Hall, 60, of Tonna, Neath, is taking his local health board (LHB) to judicial review after it refused to pay for him to have the drug, Sunitinib.

Neath Port Talbot LHB said each case for the drug was reviewed individually.

Mr Hall was diagnosed with kidney cancer in September 2006, a fortnight after he gave his notice so he could retire after working in Neath's Metal Box can factory for 44 years.

Surgeons were unable to operate because his tumour had spread to other organs.

Mr Hall's oncologist at Swansea's Singleton Hospital, Professor John Wagstaff, said the drug treatment he wanted his patient to have cost £2,300 every six weeks.

He said: "I've got a number of patients in exactly the same situation, not just with Neath Port Talbot but with other LHBs in south west Wales.

"It's a continuing battle. If he does not get this drug, the only management available to him is to control his symptoms."

Mr Hall's sister, Rosemarie Snow, said: "He has worked all his life and paid into cancer research all his life and he's got nothing.

"The drugs won't cure him but they will help prolong his life. After he worked 44 years of his life, he wants to enjoy his retirement.

Kate Spall, who has become a patient support advocate since her mother died from a rare kidney cancer, said Mr Hall was the "most exceptional" of the more than 40 cases she had advised.

She said: "He has not treatment for nearly two years for terminal cancer. That is just unheard of.

"In Wales today, somebody has not had had one piece of active treatment. That's Third World. That's unbelievable."

A spokeswoman for Neath Port Talbot LHB said she could not comment on individual cases because of confidentiality.

But she said that the local health board took guidance from the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, which said the use of Sumitinib should not be supported in Wales.

UK 'fails child cancer patients'

Survival rates for child cancer are worse in the UK than on mainland Europe, the BBC reports today, highlighting that more investment is required to improve treatment.

A study in Lancet Oncology highlighted the fact that diagnosis for some types of cancer is three times more likely in Germany than the UK.

The paper highlighted trials carried out on Wilm's tumour - a common childhood tumour - in Germany.

It showed that, between 1994 and 2001, 27.4% of patients had a cancer that was first identified during a visit to a health professional for an unrelated problem, or by routine surveillance.

By comparison, in the UK, just 11% of patients presenting to the Royal Marsden Hospital in London and 4% of patients referred to the Newcastle Hospital or the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle were identified.

Professor Alan Craft, of the University of Newcastle, said child cancer was a low priority for the NHS, and called for urgent reforms.

He recommended routine surveillance of children as standard across the UK and that health visitors needed to be more aware of the symptoms of cancer.

He also believes that children in the UK have been receiving a different treatment protocol from those in Europe, possibly involving first-line treatment or less-intensive treatment during relapse.

Professor Craft said: "Waiting lists and hospital beds keep chief executives awake at night, but I don't think the health of children does."

Cancer sufferers to be denied drug on NHS

Another story today - this time from the Daily Mail - of NHS patients being denied the drugs they need on grounds of cost.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) has rejected the drug Erbitux (also known as cetuximab) for cancer sufferers in England and Wales.

Campaigners said the move was a blow to patients as the drug is the first one licensed in the last 40 years for treating locally advanced head and neck cancer.

In January, Nice also rejected an appeal from charities over its decision to reject Erbitux for bowel cancer patients.

Today's decision covers using Erbitux in combination with radiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Nice chief executive, Andrew Dillon, said: "The evidence presented to the independent advisory committee did not persuade them that cetuximab works any better or offers better therapeutic value than existing treatments for head and neck cancer.

"The NHS has finite resources and it is our job to ensure that these are spent on treatments that confer enough of a benefit to patients in relation to the amount of money they cost."

Erbitux plus radiotherapy increases the average survival for patients from 29 months to 49 compared to patients who receive radiotherapy on its own.

More than 7,800 people are diagnosed with head and neck cancer in the UK every year. Today's announcement comes after a Swedish study published earlier this month showed that the UK has one of the worst records over access to new cancer drugs.

Experts ranked the UK in the bottom group for its "slow and low" uptake of drugs after analysing sales in 25 countries.

Dr Vinod Joshi, from the Mouth Cancer Foundation, said: "This is an extremely sad day for people living with locally advanced head and neck cancer in England and Wales.

"Nice has effectively denied them this new treatment option for a chance to live longer.

"There is now a postcode lottery as the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) has approved not only cetuximab but also docetaxel (another head and neck cancer drug) for Scottish patients."

Christine Piff, chief executive of the head and neck cancer support group Let's Face It, said: "I am devastated by the news. Head and neck cancer continues to be the Cinderella cancer, receiving little or no attention from the NHS.

"It is scandalous when you consider the emphasis placed on other cancers. Why shouldn't people suffering from head and neck cancer have access to a drug that is prescribed in Scotland?"

Dr Nick Slevin, consultant oncologist at the Christie Hospital in Manchester, added: "The decision from Nice ignores the complexities and pragmatism of clinical practice.

"I have no doubt that cetuximab with radiotherapy is the correct treatment option for some patients.

"Head and neck cancer management is not black and white and I believe this decision is discriminatory against a group of patients who don't carry the same political influence as others."

Denise Richard, head of the oncology business unit at manufacturers Merck Serono UK, said: "We are seriously considering all of our options with regards appealing this decision since we strongly believe that patients in England and Wales deserve to have access to the same standards of care as those in Scotland and the rest of Europe."

Fears over NHS funding gap for new drugs

The BBC reports today that cancer doctors fear the NHS will not be able to afford the growing number of new drugs being developed to fight cancer, and that patient face having to pay for more drugs themselves.

Responding to a BBC questionnaire, 180 specialist cancer doctors have said that they are either worried or very worried about the situation.

Some drugs, like Herceptin for breast cancer, have won NICE backing as being cost effective for the health service. But others like Tarceva, which can extend the life of lung cancer patients, have been turned down.

Specialists like Nick James, professor of clinical oncology in Birmingham, believe the gap between what the NHS can fund and what is available is going to get bigger.

"The drugs in the pipeline are going to cause even more pressure. I think politicians need to be honest and say this gap is going to be there and we need to look at ways of filling it," he said.

Stephen Allen is one patient who already pays £3,000 every six weeks for drugs alone. Mr Allen is terminally ill with kidney and lung cancer and had been told he only had six months to live.

NHS funding for the drug recommended for him was refused, with letters explaining the health service has limited resources and faces very tough decisions.

He said: "I didn't realise we had to pay for certain drugs. If they'd said from the start there are certain drugs on the list which aren't available to you, we probably would have understood a little bit easier the situation they're in."

So Mr Allen is spending savings he wanted to leave for his wife in the hope of living to see the first birthday of his youngest grandchild, two-month-old Annabelle.

Cancer charities also remain concerned about the issue of drugs, and continue to campaign for funding for individual medicines. An appeal on Tarceva is due before NICE this summer.

Many also want a much more transparent debate about how much health service money should be allocated to cutting edge cancer treatments.

Dr Jesme Fox, medical director of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, says she is appalled some people spend the last few months of their life in a desperate fight for NHS funding.

The average time from diagnosis to death for lung cancer patients is six months.

"If they're not going to be allowed to access drugs that improve survival by a few months, or improve their quality of life, we need to have an honest debate about how we're going to have to fund these things."

While it's true that the NHS has received a record increase in funding in recent years, it's still clearly not enough to meet many people's treatment needs.

So is it appropriate for MPs to vote billions of pounds away to the EU while this remains the situation? Is it acceptable to waste £2.5bn more a year on an organisation that cannot get its accounts approved by auditors, while people are denied relief-giving - even life-saving - drugs by the NHS if they can't afford to pay for them?

Can such an attitude possibly be compatible with claiming support for public services? MPs will have trouble making that stick, come the next election - if they approve the unjustified 60% increase in funds for the EU.