APPENDIX 20
Memorandum Submitted by the Prostate Cancer
Charity
INTRODUCTION
1. The Prostate Cancer Charity was founded in
1996 and prides itself on being the only group within the UK to
focus on both support and information for prostate cancer patients
and their families as well as carrying out scientific research
into prostate cancer. We provide patients with our information
leaflets to guide them through the disease and can put them in
touch with others through our nationwide network of support contacts.
We also run a confidential helpline service.
2. The Prostate Cancer Charity spent £180,515
in year ending 31 March 1998 and £304,814 in year ending
31 March 1999 into research prostate cancer. Further significant
increases in expenditure on research will be made in this and
future financial years.
3. The Prostate Cancer Charity welcomes
this inquiry and the opportunity to submit evidence. It is important
that the Committee considers the overall resources provided for
cancer research in the UK in comparison with similar countries,
as well as the need for a national cancer institute, in order
for it to make recommendations that, if implemented, would lead
to a significant improvement in the effectiveness of cancer research.
LACK OF
OVERALL RESOURCES
FOR CANCER
RESEARCH
4. The first point that needs to be made
is that the overall resources made available for cancer research
in the UK are grossly inadequate. This can be judged by comparisons
with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the USA and the large
number of top-rated projects which are unfunded by the Medical
Research Council and cancer charities, because they do not have
enough money to do so.
NEED FOR
CO-ORDINATION
5. Cancer research is a complex enterprise
and requires the co-operative efforts of many people. It requires
co-ordination and skilful fast track financing of potentially
beneficial project.
LEARNING FROM
THE USA
6. The establishment of the NCI in the USA
in the 1970s has been a worthwhile initiative and has led to the
promotion and stimulation of academic research into the origins
of cancer. The USA leads the field of cancer research. Projects
have been funded which have led to a tremendous change in the
way that we view the detailed scientific events that lead to cancers.
It is clear that it is only by promoting basic research that we
will gradually come to know the science of cancer and target and
develop new treatments for the condition.
OTHER COUNTRIES
7. Nearly every civilised country has a
national cancer institute and the aims and ambitions of such centres
include the instigation, prioritisation, and co-ordination of
cancer research and treatment. Britain remains virtually the only
country in the developed world that does not have such an organisation.
INTRODUCTION OF
HIGH COST
DRUGS
8. A sensible strategy for the introduction
of high cost drugs to treat cancer in the UK is required. The
present lurch from crisis to crisis is not sustainable. This needs
a proper perspective programme in which industry are also stakeholders.
STRATEGY TO
IMPLEMENT ADVANCES
IN TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT
9. There also needs to be a strategy to
implement advances in treatment management where the evidence
has been established eg CHART radiotherapy.
CLINICAL TRIALS
10. A better infrastructure to support clinical
trials in the UK is required. This has been prioritised by Professor
Peter Selby's group, which has provided a report to the Department
of Health. It is highly recommended that the Committee take note
of Professor Selby's report.
WORKLOAD ISSUES
11. The issue of support for clinical trials
in universities, cancer centres, and Trusts cannot be divorced
from the workload issue in the UK. It is not simply a matter of
placing a few trials nurses in clinics—from experience,
this is not enough to overcome the fundamental problem of an overworked
profession. In such circumstances, most attention goes to "firefighting"
and clinical trials are always a lower priority. Here, parity
with Europe in workload issues is vital. Research is highly valued
by NHS Clinical and Medical Oncologists but again there is a workload
issue.
NHS R&D PROGRAMME
12. The role of the NHS R&D programme
in funding clinical research has been inadequate. The commendable
attempt to widen the research base to include issues across professional
boundaries, and into methods of healthcare delivery, the balance
against biomedical research has been damaging.
WALES
13. In Wales another difficulty is the link
between R&D for health and R&D for social care. They are
welded together by the same office and are part of the same office.
The fact that the Wales Office for R&D for Health and Social
Care is a government department has a bearing on scientific independence.
8 March 2000
| 
