Public support for prostate cancer screening has grown following Daily Mail campaign, poll reveals
Some 91 per cent of Britons now believe the NHS should offer regular prostate checks for men, as it does for breast cancer in women.
This is up from 86 per cent in April when OnePoll last conducted its survey on behalf of the charity Prostate Cancer Research.
The latest findings found widespread problems around the current system, which relies on men to come forward and ask GPs for tests when they already have concerns.
Responses from 2,000 adults show one in five has had a male family member or close friend die from the disease.
Among those, more than three quarters believed earlier diagnosis could have saved the life of their loved one.
And more than one quarter of those polled had no trust, or not much trust at all, in the current NHS system to detect prostate cancer at an early stage.
Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed form of cancer in England, with 55,033 cases identified in 2023, the latest figures show.
Catching it early improves the odds of successfully treating the disease, which kills around 10,200 men in England each year.
The Daily Mail is campaigning for a national prostate cancer screening programme, initially targeted at high risk men.
This includes those who are black or have a family history of the disease.
Women aged between 50 and 70 are offered mammograms every three years.
More than half of those polled said their opinion of their local MP would worsen if they opposed the introduction of screening.
The survey found a strong desire among its respondents for the NHS to be more proactive about collecting and sharing information about medical history.
Almost seven in ten (69 per cent) said in the event they were diagnosed with prostate cancer, they would want their male family members' NHS records to be automatically updated to reflect this.
There was also considerable appetite for technological innovation, with 60 per cent supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve diagnosis, for example, by reading MRI scans faster and more accurately.
Health secretary Wes Streeting has declared his support for a national prostate cancer screening programme in a major boost for the Mail's campaign.
The health secretary told MPs in April that he would like to see the NHS proactively offer men tests for the disease in a move that could prevent thousands of needless deaths.
He said he is 'particularly sympathetic' to the argument that this should initially be targeted at high-risk men.
The call for targeted screening has also been backed by former prime minister Rishi Sunak, former home secretary Sir James Cleverly and Calvin Bailey, a Labour MP and the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on prostate cancer.
David James, the director of patient projects and influencing at Prostate Cancer Research, said: 'These poll results send an unequivocal message to policymakers: the public overwhelmingly supports the introduction of a national screening programme.
'The current system is clearly failing to meet the public's expectations for early detection and proactive management of genetic risk.
'It's time for the NHS to prioritise a targeted screening programme that could save countless lives and alleviate the long-term burden on our healthcare system.'
The charity's research suggests targeted screening, focused on black men, those with BRCA1/2 mutations and those with a family history of the disease, could mean an additional 775 early diagnoses per year for those aged between 45 and 69.
The research also suggests these changes could spare almost 300 men a year from a stage 4 diagnosis, in which prostate cancer becomes incurable.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'This Government has been clear we would like to see screening in place, but the decision must be evidence-led.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on RFK Jr's vaccine cuts: an assault on science from a politician unfit for his office
Science is not black and white. It's more complicated and more exciting. It's a constant process of exploration. An adventure into the unknown. Scientists come up with theories about what might be going on, and then test them. They don't always get it right. Far from it. But inch by inch, testing, failing and trying again, they make progress. Robert F Kennedy Jr, during Senate confirmation hearings for the role of secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), seemed to get that. Those who feared what a vaccine sceptic might do in that role breathed again. 'I'm going to empower the scientists at HHS to do their job and make sure that we have good science that is evidence based … I'm not going to substitute my judgment for science,' he said. Yet now, without good explanation or sound science, he is cutting $500m of research funding for mRNA vaccines, claiming that they 'fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like Covid and flu'. In fact, no Covid vaccine fully protects against infection, but they have been shown to prevent deaths in billions of people. The 22 contracts that will be cancelled include one with Moderna for a vaccine against bird flu, which many fear could trigger the next human pandemic (and there will be one). Instead, federal funds will go to vaccines developed in more traditional ways. Either Mr Kennedy lied to Congress or he has a different understanding of science and evidence from most scientists, unpicking what they thought was uncontestable. The childhood vaccine schedule is being reconsidered, and mandating the measles vaccine is being questioned in spite of fatal outbreaks in the US. He has sacked the Centers for Disease Control vaccine advisory panel and replaced it with many people known to have sceptical views. Mr Kennedy is particularly hostile to the mRNA vaccines against Covid-19, panning them in 2021 as the 'deadliest vaccines in history', wrongly claiming that half those suffering the rare side-effect of myocarditis would die or need heart transplants within five years. The vast majority have quickly recovered. Until 2023, he chaired an anti-vaccine organisation called Children's Health Defense, where he petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to rescind the licence of all Covid-19 vaccines and compared mandating vaccines to Nazi oppression in the second world war. This is the stuff of internet scares; labyrinthine tangles of misinformation dotted with odd inaccurate nuggets of quasi-science. It doesn't compare with the evidence base for mRNA vaccines, which went through clinical trials on hundreds of thousands of people and have since been used to vaccinate billions. Experts agree that the mRNA vaccines were a stunning breakthrough that allowed people to be protected in record time from Covid-19. They contain messenger RNA, a tiny bit of genetic code that teaches the immune system to fight the virus. No need to grow the virus in hen's eggs, which takes months. The 'plug and play' technology can be adapted against other viruses, such as flu, including some that devastate populations in poor countries. The inventors won the Nobel prize in 2023. Mr Kennedy's cancellation of funding not only stymies much research but also feeds worldwide doubt in mRNA vaccines. We are all the losers. Humanity needs these vaccines. Other countries need to step up with money and reassurance to try to heal this latest breach between science and nonsense. And Mr Kennedy is clearly unfit for the job he holds. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
‘Outdated guidance' sees thousands at risk of prostate cancer ‘overtreatment'
Up to 5,000 men every year could avoid unnecessary treatment for prostate cancer if 'outdated' guidelines reflected latest evidence, a charity has said. Overtreatment of the disease can lead to side effects such as erectile dysfunction or incontinence, according to Prostate Cancer UK. Experts suggest closely monitoring certain patients can be the 'best' option for men whose cancer is unlikely to progress, although out-of-date guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (Nice) on how this is implemented has created a 'wild west'. There are around 55,000 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in the UK every year. However, in some cases, the cancer is slow-growing and unlikely to ever cause the patient harm. These men benefit from being closely monitored with blood tests and scans, which is known as active surveillance. Nice guidance on active surveillance is designed to advise specialists on how to implement monitoring and which men should be monitored. However, it has not been updated since 2021, according to Prostate Cancer UK. Freedom of information (FOI) request analysis by the charity found around one in four (24%) of hospitals rely on Nice guidance alone to implement active surveillance. It also found 35 hospitals have created their own guidelines, which Prostate Cancer UK warned can lead to inconsistency and confusion among medics. The charity is now repeating its call for Nice to update its guidance on active surveillance, claiming it could help up to 5,000 men a year avoid overtreatment. It also claims the outdated guidance is hindering a screening programme for prostate cancer. Amy Rylance, assistant director of health improvement at Prostate Cancer UK, said: 'To reduce the harm caused by prostate cancer and build the foundations for a screening programme, we need to both save lives and prevent unnecessary treatment but official guidelines still haven't caught up with the clinical evidence. 'Concerns about overtreatment are a major reason the UK does not routinely screen for prostate cancer, despite it being the most common cancer in England. 'Acting on latest research that shows more men can safely opt for monitoring instead of treatment will reduce overtreatment and the harm it causes men. 'We asked Nice to update their active surveillance guidance two years ago, but our request was rejected. Now we have evidence this is potentially affecting thousands of men. Enough is enough.' The NHS uses a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test to check for prostate conditions including prostate cancer or an enlarged prostate. Routine PSA testing is not currently offered on the NHS, but patients may be offered a PSA test if a GP suspects they have prostate cancer, while men over 50 can request a test from their GP even if they do not have symptoms. However, there have been calls to roll the test out across the health service, although some argue widespread use could identify cases which may not have caused problems or needed treatment. Vincent Gnanapragasam, a professor of urology at the University of Cambridge, said: 'Active surveillance is the best treatment option for men whose cancer is unlikely to progress or cause them problems in their lifetime. 'But Nice's outdated guidelines have created a deeply concerning wild west on how surveillance is implemented by different healthcare teams. 'This inconsistency is resulting in a lack of confidence from patients in surveillance, who may instead opt to have treatment they may not have ever needed, risking harmful side effects. 'Programmes for active surveillance that are standardised and individualised to a man's risk factors have been tested and proven to work.' The UK's National Screening Committee is currently assessing whether a national screening programme for prostate cancer should be rolled out. A Nice spokesperson said: 'We are committed to ensuring our guidelines continue to reflect the best available evidence and give patients the best possible outcomes. 'They are developed by an independent committee, including NHS clinical experts, and are kept under review to ensure they remain current. 'We are updating our prostate cancer guideline, including a review of the recommendations around active surveillance, and will be assessing whether our suspected cancer guideline recommendations around age-related thresholds for PSA tests for prostate cancer for onwards referral from primary care require updating.'
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
What does the data tell us about road traffic accidents in the UK?
Under "tougher" plans to tackle road deaths and injuries in England and Wales, the government has announced measures to make over-70s take compulsory eye tests every three years or lose their driving licence. But are they really needed? Motorists over the age of 70 already self-report their medical fitness to drive every three years, and British roads are safer now than they've ever been. In 2023, the latest year for which the Department for Transport has published data, the casualty rate on British roads fell to 398 per billion vehicle miles. It's the first time that figure has been under 400, and has halved since just 2006. In 1960, the casualty rate was 10 times higher than it is now. The total number of people killed on the UK's roads also reached a record low in 2023, other than the COVID-affected years of 2020 and 2021. There were 1,624 people killed in total, just under half of which were in cars. This figure has plateaued somewhat since 2010, however, after rapid improvements between 2006 and 2010. There was a similar plateau between 1994 and 2006 before the last significant piece of road safety legislation was introduced. The 2006 Road Safety Act introduced higher fines and more points for the most severe speeding offences, as well as vastly expanding the use of speed awareness courses. It was also the first year that people could get points on their licence for using their phone. In the four years that followed, there was a 40% decrease in deaths among road users. In the 13 years since then, it's fallen just 12%. There had been a slight rise in deaths among older drivers for a few years between 2014 and 2019, but that has started to fall again now. There are now fewer deaths among over-70s compared with either the under-30s, people aged 30-49, or those between 50 and 69. In 2019, there were a similar number of deaths among people of each of these age cohorts. Academic studies have previously found that older people are also more likely to develop symptoms of depression, be admitted to care facilities, and even have a higher mortality rate, once they stop driving. The academics found that those links remained even after adjusting for other factors like baseline health and cognitive ability. Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said: "It is certainly good for our eye health as we age to have a regular eye test - every two years the NHS advises - but this doesn't automatically mean that a compulsory eye test at age 70 is appropriate. People can develop eye problems at any age so why confine such an approach only to those aged 70 and not to younger drivers too? "From the data we have seen, there is no reason to suppose that eye problems lie behind a significant proportion of accidents. While there may be a case for introducing a regular mandatory eye test for drivers of all ages, it is not clear that this would have a big impact on the numbers of serious accidents involving older drivers." Are younger drivers a danger to themselves? Edmund King, president of the Automobile Association, said that the government's strategy is "much overdue", while pointing to the figures showing that the number of road deaths have plateaued since 2010. He said that making vision checks compulsory for older drivers was a "practical step that can make a real difference", but added that failing to introduce a six-month limit on new drivers transporting passengers of a similar age is "a major oversight". A limit like this has been active in parts of Australia since 2007. Research by road safety charity Brake says that, in the UK, around one in five drivers crash within a year of passing their test. The Department for Transport data also shows that younger people are also significantly more likely to die as passengers compared to people in other age groups. There has also been a suggestion that younger drivers are more likely to die as a result of not wearing seatbelts. More than a third of 17-29-year-olds who die on the roads didn't have their seatbelts on. But the same is true of 30-59 year olds. There is a significant difference between men and women however - 31% of men who died did so without wearing a seatbelt, compared with just 11% of women. That also means that 89% of women who died on the roads did so despite wearing a seatbelt, perhaps adding to evidence that suggests that seatbelts offer better protection to adult men. Drink-driving Since 2014, Scotland has had a lower drink-drive limit than the rest of the UK. The government's new proposals would reduce the drink-drive limit in England and Wales to the same level as in Scotland - 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, instead of the current level of 80mg of alcohol. For an average-sized man, that means they would be over the limit after one pint of beer, instead of after two. In diverging from the other nations in the UK, the new standards in Scotland aligned with most of Europe. It seems to have had some impact. The number of collisions involving drink drivers has fallen by more than 40% in Scotland since it was introduced, compared with 20% in England over the same time period, and 38% in Wales. The improvement is less pronounced when it comes to the most serious drink-driving road accidents, though. They are down just 7% since 2014. Where are the safest, and most dangerous, places to drive? The Isle of Wight has the highest current fatality rate, after accounting for how much driving people do. There were 18 deaths per billion vehicle miles on the island in 2023. Next was Blackpool, with 16. The central London boroughs of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Lambeth were the only other local authorities with a rate higher than 10. At the other end of the scale, Stockport (Greater Manchester), Thurrock (Essex) and Nottingham each had fewer than one death per billion vehicle miles. When it comes to accidents that included not just deaths but also serious injuries, London has the worst record. Drivers in Westminster were most likely to end up in a serious collision, but the nine most dangerous local authorities in Great Britain were all London boroughs. Bradford completed the bottom 10. Bath and North East Somerset was the safest area, although three Welsh areas - Bridgend, Neath Port Talbot and Cardiff - joined South Gloucestershire in the top five. Scottish drivers were among the most likely to avoid being in crashes altogether. Eight of the 10 local authorities with the lowest overall collision rate were north of the border, although Rutland in the East Midlands had the lowest overall rate. The top 20 areas with the most collisions per mile driven were all in London. How does driving in the UK compare with other countries? The UK is one of the safest places to drive in Europe. Only Norway and Sweden had a lower rate of road deaths per head of population in 2023 than the UK's 25 deaths per million people. The figures in places like Italy, Greece and Portugal were more than twice as high. There aren't any directly comparable figures for 2023 for the US, but in 2022 their death rate from driving was five times as high as the UK, and 50% higher than the worst performing European country - Bulgaria. The Data and Forensics
