Petition for cancer treatment to be funded reaches 46,000 signatories
The cancer charity Planets is leading the campaign for the treatment, known as selective internal radiation therapy (Sirt), to be made available through the NHS after it was approved for use more than a year ago.
A spokesman for the charity said: 'Every year approximately 6,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with NETs, a complex and often slow-growing cancer that can be difficult to detect and treat.
Layla Stephen, a neuroendocrine tumour (NET) patient from Hampshire and director of strategy and finance for Planets (Planets Cancer Charity/PA)
'Many patients develop tumours in the liver where the treatment could offer significant benefits.
'Sirt involves injecting millions of tiny radioactive beads called microspheres – smaller than the width of a human hair – into the blood supply in the liver to destroy cancer cells.'
The spokesman said that despite approval by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in May 2024, NHS England had yet to commission it meaning that patients had no timetable for when it might become available.
He added that Sirt was already available on the NHS for patients whose liver cancer developed in the organ directly or which had spread to it from the bowel but NET patients remained excluded.
Layla Stephen, a NET patient from Hampshire and director of strategy and finance for Planets, said: 'Patients are missing out simply because of red tape.
'Without NHS commissioning, only those that can afford to go private have access to Sirt and that is simply not right or fair – we need to change this.'
Microspheres, tiny radioactive beads smaller than the width of a human hair, are injected into the blood supply in the liver to destroy cancer cells through Sirt (Planets/PA)
Ms Stephen added: 'In a statement earlier this year, NHS England said it was developing a national policy on Sirt to ensure all patients across England have the best possible treatment, yet there is still no confirmed timeline despite approval in May last year, leaving patients in limbo and suffering agonising uncertainty.'
Caroline Nokes, Conservative MP for Romsey and Southampton North, has written to health and social care secretary Wes Streeting about the issue.
She said: 'Constituents of mine with neuroendocrine tumours should not be caught in a bureaucratic limbo when effective treatment is both available and approved. There needs to be fairness and transparency for these patients.'
An NHS spokeswoman said previously: 'The NHS understands the concerns raised about access to selective internal radiation therapy (Sirt) for neuroendocrine tumours in the liver.
'The health service is currently reviewing a clinical proposal and developing a new national mandated NHS policy on Sirt to ensure all patients across England have the best possible treatment for their liver metastases.'
The petition can be found at: change.org/p/ensure-access-for-cancer-patients-to-life-changing-treatment-approved-by-nice.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Alzheimer's drugs rejected for NHS because benefits ‘too small' to justify cost
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) is standing by its earlier decision to turn down donanemab and lecanemab after considering new information submitted by manufacturers. Charities described the decision as 'disappointing' and a 'painful setback' for patients, while the firms Lilly, which makes donanemab, and Eisai, which makes lecanemab, said they would appeal. Donanemab and lecanemab are targeted antibody drugs that slow down the early stages of Alzheimer's. They represent a huge step forward in research because they target a known cause of the disease, rather than just treating symptoms. Both drugs bind to amyloid, a protein which builds up in the brains of people living with Alzheimer's disease. By binding to amyloid, the drugs are designed to help clear the build-up and slow down cognitive decline. Publishing its final draft guidance, Nice said the treatments have been shown to delay progression from mild to moderate Alzheimer's by four to six months. But it said the medicines cannot be provided on the NHS because they are not good value for money and 'only provide modest benefits at best'. Last year, NHS England published a briefing paper suggesting the cost of bringing the drugs to the health service could be £500 million to £1 billion per year. Professor Fiona Carragher, Alzheimer's Society's chief policy and research Officer, said the decision was 'disappointing'. She said: 'There is no doubt that today's decision is a setback for people with Alzheimer's disease. 'It is highly disappointing that we are in a situation where treatments that slow the progression of the condition are not available on the NHS. 'The reality we're faced with is that these treatments remain out of reach of both the NHS and most eligible people with Alzheimer's disease. 'In other diseases like cancer, treatments have become more effective, safer and cheaper over time. It's essential we see similar progress in dementia. 'The fact is, even if donanemab and lecanemab were made available on the NHS tomorrow, too many patients wouldn't be able to access them because the health system isn't ready to deliver them. 'The science is flying but the system is failing.' She said the Government must now commit to 'the long-term investment needed to fundamentally change dementia diagnosis so that we are ready for new treatments', including bringing in earlier diagnosis and access to specialist diagnostic tests. She added: 'We are heading towards a future where disease-slowing treatments reduce the devastating impact of dementia, and we cannot afford to delay preparing the NHS for them.' Hilary Evans-Newton, chief executive of Alzheimer's Research UK, said: 'This rejection is a painful setback for people affected by Alzheimer's – but sadly not a surprising one. 'The drugs' modest benefits, combined with the significant costs of delivering them in the NHS, meant they faced insurmountable challenges. 'People with early Alzheimer's in England and Wales now face a long wait for innovative new treatments as they won't be able to access lecanemab or donanemab unless they can afford to pay privately. 'This decision sends a troubling signal to the life sciences sector – undermining confidence in the UK as a home for research, innovation and clinical trials. That risks lasting damage to both patients and the economy. 'Nice's decision should ring alarm bells for a Government that, only a year ago, pledged to make the UK a global leader in dementia treatments. 'With over 30 Alzheimer's drugs now in late-stage trials globally, momentum is building – and more will enter regulatory systems in the years ahead. 'Without intervention from Government, people with Alzheimer's will continue to miss out — not because science is failing, but because the system is.' Helen Knight, director of medicines evaluation at Nice, said: 'While we recognise the hope these treatments offer, the evidence shows they only provide modest benefits at best and substantial resources would be needed to provide them. 'The committee accepted that any slowing of the disease getting worse would be meaningful for people with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease and their carers because it could mean more time socialising, driving and being independent, so needing less help day-to-day from family members. 'But the committee concluded the small benefits to patients shown in the clinical trials and the lack of long-term evidence of effectiveness balanced with the substantial resources the NHS would need to commit to the treatments would be too great and could displace other essential treatments and services that deliver substantial benefits to patients. 'We have done everything we possibly can to try and achieve a positive outcome in our assessments of these treatments, including providing an additional opportunity for evidence to be submitted. 'We realise today's news will be disappointing for many, but we now need to focus on the encouraging pipeline of new Alzheimer's drugs in development, a number of which are already earmarked for Nice evaluation.' Drug firms and registered patient groups now have until July 8 to appeal against the decision. In clinical trials, donanemab, which is given via a drip, has been shown to slow the rate at which memory and thinking get worse by more than 20%. Results also suggest the drug leads to a 40% slowing in the decline of everyday activities such as driving, enjoying hobbies and managing money. Lecanemab – also administered via drip – has been shown to successfully remove protein build-up from the brains of people living with early Alzheimer's disease. For people taking lecanemab, this meant the decline in their thinking and memory skills was slowed down by 27%. It also slowed down the decline in quality of life by up to 56%. However, side-effects of the drugs can be serious, including brain bleeds and risk of death. A reformulation of lecanemab is being developed so it can be administered subcutaneously under the skin. Nice could then review the drug in this form. Lilly said it would appeal the Nice decision on the grounds it was unreasonable based on the evidence submitted. Chris Stokes, president and general manager of UK and Northern Europe at Lilly, said: 'If the system can't deliver scientific firsts to NHS patients, it is broken. 'If the Government is to deliver on its goals to reduce lives lost to the biggest killers and put Britain at the forefront of transforming treatment for dementia, it must keep pace with licensed medical breakthroughs.' Dr Jeremy Isaacs, national clinical director for dementia at NHS England, said: 'NHS England has a dedicated team preparing for the rollout of new Alzheimer's treatments. 'There are several other Alzheimer's treatments in development, and the NHS stands ready to offer patients access to new treatments as soon as they are deemed by regulators to be clinically and cost effective.'
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Assisted dying: All you need to know ahead of the next crunch parliamentary vote
Here, the PA news agency takes a look at the Bill and what is happening. – What is in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. This would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. The terminally ill person would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves. – When would assisted dying be available if the Bill became law? The implementation period has been doubled to a maximum of four years from royal assent, rather than the initially suggested two years. If the Bill was to pass later this year that would mean it might not be until 2029, potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament, that assisted dying was being offered. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who is the parliamentarian behind the Bill and put forward the extended timeframe, has insisted it is 'a backstop' rather than a target, as she pledged to 'hold the Government's feet to the fire' on implementing legislation should the Bill pass. The extended implementation period was one of a number of changes made since the Bill was first introduced to the Commons back in October. – What other changes have there been? The High Court safeguard has been dropped and replaced by expert panels – a change much-criticised by opponents who said it weakened the Bill, but something Ms Leadbeater has argued strengthens it. At the end of a weeks-long committee process earlier this year to amend the Bill, Ms Leadbeater said rather than removing judges from the process, 'we are adding the expertise and experience of psychiatrists and social workers to provide extra protections in the areas of assessing mental capacity and detecting coercion while retaining judicial oversight'. Changes were also made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and to set up a disability advisory board to advise on legal implementation and impact on disabled people. Amendments added earlier this month during report stage in the Commons will also see assisted dying adverts banned if the Bill becomes law, and a prohibition on medics being able to speak with under-18s about assisted dying. – Do we know much more about the potential impact of such a service coming in? A Government impact assessment, published earlier this month, estimated that between 164 and 647 assisted deaths could potentially take place in the first year of the service, rising to between 1,042 and 4,559 in year 10. The establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and three-member expert panels would cost an estimated average of between £10.9 million to £13.6 million per year, the document said. It had 'not been possible' to estimate the overall implementation costs at this stage of the process, it added. While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years. – Do healthcare staff have to take part in assisted dying? It was already the case that doctors would not have to take part, but MPs have since voted to insert a new clause into the Bill extending that to anyone. The wording means 'no person', including social care workers and pharmacists, is obliged to take part in assisted dying and can now opt out. Amendments to the Bill were debated on care homes and hospices also being able to opt out but these were not voted on. Ms Leadbeater has previously said there is nothing in the Bill to say they have to, nor is there anything to say they do not have to, adding on the Parliament Matters podcast that this is 'the best position to be in' and that nobody should be 'dictating to hospices what they do and don't do around assisted dying'. – What will happen on Friday? The Bill is back for third reading, which is the first time MPs will vote on the overall piece of legislation since the yes vote in November. It is expected some outstanding amendments might be voted on first thing on Friday before debate on the Bill as a whole begins. MPs voted 330 to 275, majority 55, to approve the Bill at second reading in November. The relatively narrow majority means every vote will count on Friday, to secure the Bill's passage to the House of Lords for further debate and voting. An an example, the Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted exactly the same way as they did in November, including those who abstained. A vote would be expected to take place mid-afternoon. – What about assisted dying in the rest of the UK and Crown Dependencies? The Isle of Man looks likely to become the first part of the British Isles to legalise assisted dying, after its proposed legislation passed through a final vote of the parliament's upper chamber in March. In what was hailed a 'landmark moment', members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) in May voted in favour of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, backing its general principles. It will now go forward for further scrutiny and amendments but will only become law if MSPs approve it in a final vote, which should take place later this year. Any move to legalise assisted dying in Northern Ireland would have to be passed by politicians in the devolved Assembly at Stormont. Jersey's parliament is expected to debate a draft law for an assisted dying service on the island for terminally ill people later this year. With a likely 18-month implementation period if a law is approved, the earliest it could come into effect would be summer 2027.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Campaigners make case for assisted dying Bill ahead of crucial Commons vote
Kim Leadbeater is expected to re-state her argument that dying people must be given choice at the end of their lives, but opponents of her Bill have warned it fails to guarantee protections for society's most vulnerable. Friday will be the first time the Bill has been debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill (Stefan Rousseau/PA) The relatively narrow majority means every vote will count on Friday, to secure the Bill's passage to the House of Lords for further debate and voting. An an example, the Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted exactly the same way as they did in November, including those who abstained. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has indicated he will continue to back the Bill, as he did last year, saying earlier this week that his 'position is long-standing and well-known' on assisted dying. Health Secretary Wes Streeting, while describing Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. While supporters of the Bill say it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date, opponents claim the process has been rushed and that changes to the Bill mean it is now weaker than it was when first introduced. Significant changes since it succeeded in the initial vote in Parliament include the replacement of the High Court safeguard with expert panels, and a doubling of the implementation period to a maximum of four years for an assisted dying service to be in place should the Bill pass into law. Academic and disability campaigner Miro Griffiths has sent an open letter to MPs, asking them not to endorse the 'perilous piece of legislation' even if they support assisted dying in principle. He wrote: 'I would ask you to devote your energy to improving ethical and progressive forms of support: blanket suicide prevention, palliative care, and measures that create a more just and inclusive society for disabled people. This is the better way forward.' Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who would have a vote should the Bill make its way to the House of Lords, said: 'We are constantly being told that this Bill is not for disabled people and there will not be coercion. 'Coercion is an absolute reality in today's society, and in every jurisdiction where assisted dying has been brought in, it has expanded either through legislation, the court system or practice. 'It is very easy to see that this route will be suggested to disabled people who will be made to feel a burden.' The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) stated last month that it has 'serious concerns' about the safeguarding of people with mental illness and said it cannot support the Bill in its current form. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has indicated he will continue to back the Bill (Suzanne Plunkett/PA) Ahead of Friday's vote, Dr Annabel Price from the college said that as it stands the involvement of psychiatrists in expert panels is 'deeply troubling' as they would not have 'enough space or time to carry out proper, holistic assessments' and warned of the 'risk (of) making irreversible decisions based on treatable suffering'. Countering this, a number of psychiatrists recently expressed their support for the assisted dying Bill, voicing concern and distancing themselves from the opposition stance taken by their professional medical body. Seven RCPsych members, including a former college president and vice-president, wrote to MPs to voice their backing for the Bill, describing it as 'workable, safe and compassionate' with a 'clear and transparent legal framework' they argue is 'far preferable to the unjust status quo, where we know dying people seek to exercise choice at the end of life, but without any upfront safeguards, routine oversight or support from relevant clinicians'. Meanwhile, Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter Rebecca Wilcox said she is 'really hopeful' the Bill can pass the major vote, as she warned against 'scaremongering' by opponents.
