Tag Archives: sustainable

Smoke gets in your eyes

Simon Crompton

Simon Crompton

The title of Europa Donna’s annual London symposium last week was “New directions in breast cancer”. By the end of the evening, possible new directions were clear, but the route to take was not.

One of the two speakers was Daniel Leff, a cancer surgeon from Imperial College London, who addressed the difficulties of defining the correct margins when surgically removing breast cancer. The object had to be, he said, reducing the chances of reoperation.

He tantalised the audience with the question: “Can surgical smoke be informative?”

Potential of spectrometer analysis

Researchers at Imperial have used mass spectrometers to analyse the smoke arising from tissue incision with electrosurgical knives – a technique known as Rapid Evaporative Ionisation Mass Spectrometry (REIMS). Different types of cell produce different chemical concentrations when burned, so the chemical profile can indicate whether the tissue being cut is cancerous or not.

Identification of cancerous tissue using the technique during surgery, said Leff, was 93% accurate.

It’s a truly impressive technological development, that has potential to radically reduce reoperation rates for breast cancer.

The cost question

But how much did the machinery cost, asked a member of the audience? Half a million pounds, answered Leff. And how much did a pathologist cost? The answer was not given, but the point was made…

Pathologists already have advanced (and cheaper) techniques which can accurately indicate to surgeons which areas are cancerous and which are not. The question, said audience members, was why they were not being used. Leff himself acknowledged that pathology analysis using frozen section and touch imprint cytology were highly effective ways of determining the extent of breast disease and reducing the need for re-excision. But they are not widely used in the UK.

Novelty intoxication

On the systemic therapy side, Stephen Johnston, Professor of Breast Cancer Medicine at the Royal Marsden Hospital, spoke of the real promise of the drug Palbociclib as a first-line treatment for ER-positive breast cancer, and (in combination with Fulvestrant) as a second-line treatment as well. The cost of Palbociclib? Around £90,000 for one year’s treatment. The pressing question of how such expensive drugs are to be made widely available was raised, but not addressed.

New directions in breast cancer are exciting, involving, often inspiring. But we know how easy it is to become intoxicated with novelty and infatuated with technology. Sometimes, it isn’t new directions we need to hear about, but what is already here but under-utilised – and how we can best use what is proven, affordable and practicable to benefit the greatest number of women possible, as soon as possible.

Europa Donna, the European Breast Cancer Coalition, has a Facebook page.

 

 

 

 

 

Why should older patients pay the price of failures of holistic care and HTA?

roger WilsonA debate between two medical oncologists over whether younger patients should get priority when it comes to access to very expensive drugs with the potential to prolong life was recently published online by Cancer World. In this guest post, Roger Wilson, a patient advocate and Honorary President of Sarcoma Patients Euronet, argues that giving patients a voice in these discussion is the only way to move on from these “simplistic, inward looking  solutions”.

The push to use age as a determining factor in drug funding permissions is blatantly discriminatory. There are better methods and measures for discerning eligibility, if only someone researched them properly.

The pharma industry is not interested in this research. Its business model (which determines its approach to pricing) is encouraged by the current inadequacy of HTA and political decisions such as England’s Cancer Drugs Fund. Indeed the latter encourages higher prices.

When the current UK government came to power in 2010 they vowed that by 2014 we would have a value-based approach to funding decisions. Its nearly 2015 and there is no sign of it but as there was no research into how value could be defined let alone measured, its no wonder we are back to simplistic thinking about age.

The core issues here are about the holistic treatment of a patient. Just looking at the disease (albeit hosted by a person) does not take into account the needs of the whole person. This debate should be about integrating supportive care into oncology practice, about losing the barriers between palliative care and oncology, about educating patients on the balance between cure and end-of-life care so that when disease is truly incurable patients make rational decisions themselves.

Another cycle of chemo given to a dying patient is immoral. Living and dying have to become palatable points for discussion. This will deliver benefits for individuals and society and could well cut drug costs. While politicians, healthcare administrators, academics and doctors are the main voices on this issue simplistic inward-looking solutions will result.

Get patients involved, introduce some earthy common sense.

Bold policies for progress north and south

anna portrait  picWorking in silos has long been a problem within the cancer community, as people engaged in increasingly specialised fields struggle to remain aware of the bigger picture. So it can be important, on occasion, to bring the different constituents together around a single agenda.

One might have wondered, however, whether the World Oncology Forum, which gathered almost two months ago in Lugano, Switzerland, might not have been a little over-ambitious in setting an agenda that focused on two topics that are poles apart in almost every respect, including the geographical.

The first of these, fixing the ‘broken model’ of new drug development, is a priority issue for the northern hemisphere. The second, addressing unmet need for the most rudimentary detection, treatment and palliative care, is the priority in the South. The opportunity to explore these challenges and the associated policy implications, within a single gathering, however, turned out to be remarkably constructive.

wof collage Hearing about some of the best examples of low- to middle-income countries that have taken well-planned, system-wide, sensibly financed steps to get the widest possible access to the best possible early detection, treatment and follow-up showed just how much can be achieved for cancer patients, even with modest resources, by simply getting the fundamentals right.

While hearing about the cost, both in health expenditure and overtreatment, of squeezing out additional survival benefit for patients in better resourced health systems brought home how unsustainable current approaches to developing new treatments are becoming, even for world’s wealthiest countries. The message that came out was about priorities.

  • Don’t waste resources on expensive equipment and therapies if the money can be better used getting the fundamentals right for everybody who needs them.
  • Don’t waste resources on developing new therapies unless they aim high – which means tackling resistance rather simply chasing cancer cell evolution from dependence on one mutated pathway to the next.

Bold policy initiatives that champion the public interest will be needed at international and national level to achieve what must be achieved. The task of the 35 assembled experts, leaders and innovators in their own fields, was to spell out the core elements of such initiatives.

As keynote speaker Paul Workman, chief executive of the UK Institute of Cancer Research, points out in the video below, the level of agreement among participants was remarkable, given the differences in their geographic and professional backgrounds and the strong views held by all.

The exact wording of the final policy appeal is currently being finalised. It will be published on this blog and in the March issue of Cancer World, which will carry a full report of this remarkable meeting. It will also feed into a discussion at the ‘Davos’ World Economic Forum on meeting the challenge of the global cancer epidemic, if and when the organisers confirm that the issue has made it onto the final agenda at the end of January 2015.

Slides from most of the presentations are available now on the ESO website (access requires you to register with Club ESO).

Speeding up global access to detection and care

 

Dr Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan

Dr Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan

Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, special advisor on cancer control and head of early detection and prevention at IARC (the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer), Lyon, will lead the session on Access to effective and affordable treatments in middle- and low-income countries at the World Oncology Forum, Lugano, October 23–25. In this guest blogpost he talks about the policy recommendations he will be arguing for.

I’M LOOKING FORWARD to speaking at the World Oncology Forum about new healthcare financing models that are extending access to effective early diagnosis and treatment of cancer in many low- to- middle-income countries. I would like to see the Forum issue recommendations that can catalyse the pace of this transformation and deliver a very blunt message to governments and international development agencies.

Some success stories

The last few years have seen important progress in access to healthcare, particularly in middle-income countries. I would like to see this replicated in low-income countries.

Thailand, for instance, started introducing universal healthcare from 2002. Today, anyone living anywhere in Thailand, can access care seamlessly across public health services.

Initially under the Thai scheme, people were required to make a single, small copayment – 30 Baht or around $1 – the first time they see a healthcare professional for a particular complaint. That payment would cover the entire journey that follows, including diagnostic tests, treatments and follow-up. This co-payment was abolished in 2007, and universal health care became free for poor people.

Despite initial fears that the health system would collapse, it is working well. One important reason is that the government is investing a substantial amount of its GDP into healthcare. Another is that the “30-Baht” scheme mainly covers people from the very poorest rural communities – those employed by the government and the private sector have their own insurance systems.

Not only has it considerably improved access to healthcare in Thailand, it has also regulated the market, because the system will only pay for standard procedures. Since then, many other middle-income countries have implemented successful schemes to widen access to healthcare, including Turkey, India and Malaysia as well as many of the larger countries in Latin America, such as Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina and Chile.

Spreading the success: two recommendations

1. Cancer control must be a national responsibility

Countries like Thailand have shown it is possible through a variety of models to provide sustainable good-quality health services on a subsidised basis for a large proportion of people, while recovering healthcare costs from those who can afford it.

However, we also need to learn from our failures. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, health services have barely improved, there are no health financing systems, and access to healthcare has not improved at all.

I think one of the major reasons for this is the amount of external assistance they receive, which has blunted internal investment and internal drive and internal planning.

We need to make governments realise that healthcare is their own responsibility, and the systems and investments they have to make should be their own, and should come from their own national budgets. The way to do this is to substantially increase the GDP proportion that is contributed to healthcare from national budget.

So one message I would like to come out of the World Oncology Forum is that:
International organisations and funding agencies should insist that the countries they help must predominantly use national resources to develop and sustain their own national healthcare services.

 2. Cancer control needs a joined up approach

Another lesson we need to learn is that countries need to approach cancer control as a whole, linking prevention, early detection, treatment and palliative care. In Latin America, for instance, screening with the Pap smear was carried out for many many years, with very little impact on disease. Everyone blamed the poor cytology, but the bigger problem was that most women with the positive cytology never had a diagnosis made and never received treatment.

Governments and international agencies need to take a more comprehensive view across the entire spectrum of cancer control.

I think we have lessons to learn here from the comprehensive approach taken by the GAVI alliance, which has been very successful in terms of immunisation coverage and reducing child mortality. So another key message I would like to see coming out of the World Oncology Forum is:
We need to think in terms of a global alliance for cancer care continuum.

 Other key issues

Other key issues I will be asking the World Oncology Forum to consider include:

  • The urgent need to secure universal access to basic early diagnosis and treatment services
  • Opportunities for working within the wider efforts to tackle “non-communicable diseases”
  • Reversing the worrying trend towards adopting expensive and unnecessary imaging investigations, very expensive, very high-tech radiotherapy equipment and techniques, and expensive chemotherapy regimens and targeted drugs whose additional benefit has not been well demonstrated.

I look forward to the discussion

Wof image