Cancer treatment ‘on brink of golden age'
Sir Stephen Powis said treatments are 'developing at such a pace' that a diagnosis should no longer be seen as a death sentence. In recent years, advances in immunotherapy, medication and early detection have improved survival rates, with thousands of patients now living longer and with better quality of life.
He compared recent progress in fighting cancer to the way treatment for Aids has been revolutionised over the past four decades.
'As a young doctor, I saw the terrible pain and the death HIV/Aids caused to patients. Then, as you roll the clock forward, you see treatments coming in, successful therapies.
'We are now at the point where it is a condition that can be managed, and people can live a normal life that just couldn't have been imagined back in those dark days of the 1980s. When you look at that wider time frame, then goodness me — doesn't medicine advance?'
Drugs which train the immune system to kill cancer cells and genetic tests which personalise treatment will all form part of a 'treatment revolution' in the coming years, he told The Times. 'Cancer treatment will get much more individualised. That's being driven by genetics.'
In his last interview before stepping down as the medical director of NHS England, he said: 'We are at the cusp of a golden era in terms of the way we treat a range of cancers. People are living longer with cancers and surviving cancers, and we are curing some cancers, and that trend will continue over time.
'For many cancers now, people should be confident that it's not a death sentence and that more treatments will become available.
'Our understanding of the genetics of cancer, of the way we can target cancers with particular drugs, and how we can use the body's own immune system to target cancers itself, is being revolutionised.
Half of the population will get cancer in their lifetime and 385,000 people are diagnosed with it every year in Britain.
Better treatment means half now survive for 10 years after a diagnosis, compared with one in four in the 1970s. For breast cancer, three in four women now survive at least ten years after diagnosis.
Lung cancers will become 'a lot rarer' because of vaccines which have shown promise in clinical trials and tests that identify the genetic profile of lung and breast cancer tumours so patients can quickly be given personalised treatment plans, he said.
A revolutionary blood test that allows personalised cancer treatment is already being be rolled out on the NHS in a world first.
He also claimed the smoking ban for younger generations will lead to the elimination of some types of cancer.
'Some of the diseases I've seen over my 40 years will be rare diseases for doctors in the next 40 years. The lung cancers that I've seen hopefully will be a lot rarer because of the interventions that we made.
'We can't prevent all cancers, but there are cancers that we can certainly prevent,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
41 minutes ago
- ITV News
Drug linked to cancer given to mothers nearly a decade after it was banned, ITV News can reveal
Up to 300,000 women are thought to have been prescribed Stilbestrol over four decades, as ITV News Social Affairs Correspondent Sarah Corker reports ITV News has discovered new evidence that a dangerous drug linked to cancer was given to mothers nearly a decade after it was supposed to have been banned. Now, in a major development, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting confirmed the government is considering enhanced cancer screening for those impacted by the use of Stilbestrol, also known as DES, and has vowed to "look seriously at these allegations." What is DES? Stilbestrol, also known as DES, was prescribed on the NHS to prevent miscarriage and to stop breast milk production from 1939 until the late 1970s. Marketed as a 'wonder drug' - a synthetic form of female hormone oestrogen - it has become one of the biggest drug disasters in the NHS's history. ITV News can reveal that doctors, regulators, and successive governments failed to act and protect women from the dangers. Other countries around the world, such as the United States, banned the drug in the 1970s as scientific studies linked the use of DES with breast, cervical, and vaginal cancers. In the UK, health authorities failed to do the same. The UK government claimed that in 1973, a letter was sent to all doctors telling them to stop using DES for pre-menopausal women, but ITV News has found dozens of women who say they were given it after that date, some as late as 1980. Susan Miller, 73, from London, believes she was given the drug in 1975 after the birth of her daughter to stop her breast milk – that is two years after the government said GPs were told to stop prescribing the drug. She recalls questioning the doctor about the drug's side effects whilst on the maternity ward, but told ITV News those concerns were dismissed. 'I was lied to. It's absolutely disgusting. I should have never been given the drug. It's ruined so many people's lives.' It's estimated that up to 300,000 women were prescribed Stilbestrol over four decades. Mrs Miller is among more than 200 people who have contacted ITV News after seeing our ongoing DES investigation. 'It's not just me, it's other women as well. They are walking around with time bombs in their breasts, because they don't even know, so they can't even get checked,' she said. The mother of one believes the effect on her health has been devastating. She's survived blood cancer but now has an aggressive form of breast cancer and is undergoing treatment. Research suggests that DES mothers may have a 30% higher risk of breast cancer. If the drug was taken while pregnant, the harm can be passed down through the generations. Daughters exposed in the womb are at increased risk of clear cell cancer of the cervix and vagina and reproductive abnormalities. Despite the known increased risks, successive governments have failed to introduce enhanced screening, which women say would be 'lifesaving.' ITV News has also spoken to former midwives who recall administering DES on maternity wards as late as 1979, and doctors who later treated women with aggressive forms of cancer which have since been linked to DES exposure. 'Massive regulatory failure' In 1971, US scientists proved DES was unsafe for use on pre-menopausal women. The medicines watchdog, the MHRA, repeatedly told ITV News that in May 1973, "the Committee on Safety of Medicines wrote to all doctors to advise against the use of DES in pregnancy and women who have not yet gone through menopause." No evidence of that letter can be found. A series of Freedom of Information requests and internal reviews from ITV News to the MHRA were rejected. Our team has searched through hundreds of pages of public health records at the British Library and National Archives, and there is no evidence of that 1973 letter. In fact, there is no evidence to show that DES was withdrawn or restricted, despite mounting evidence of the drug's sinister side effects. Dr Sonia Macleod, from Oxford University and an expert on pharmaceutical safety, said, "There are clear indications that more could and should have been done by the regulators at the time, and if you look at it in this way, that becomes a regulatory failure." Dr Macleod believes the government bears ultimate responsibility for the impact on women. "I think women have been hugely failed in the UK, and particularly because this was a drug that was developed through government funding," she said. "There must be accountability and responsibility. Compensation should come from the government. The impacts are horrendous and have been ignored and unseen. It is so wrong," she said. Dr Sonia Macleod, from Oxford University and an expert on pharmaceutical safety. On the south coast in Bognor Regis, Mary Jarman believes she was given DES in 1977, years after warnings about the drug. Then aged 19, she was prescribed the pills by her GP to stop her breast milk after giving birth prematurely. Ms Jarman later suffered a severe reaction, resulting in emergency breast surgery. 'It was a drug that nobody should have had, and they realised what it was doing, they should have stopped it. But I think because I had an old family doctor, they just kept handing it out,' she said. Decades later, in her 40s, she developed cervical cancer and had a full hysterectomy. "If that has caused all the trouble, now I can understand I wasn't just unlucky to have all those women's problems, it was all connected." Mary Jarman believes she was given DES in 1977, years after warnings about the drug. Poor NHS record keeping and the casual way DES was given out means women may never know for sure what they were exposed to or the long-term impact it has had. There are growing calls for a nationwide investigation. There has still been no attempt to trace and inform those exposed to this dangerous drug, and limited research into the long-term health implications. While thousands of DES victims have sued pharmaceutical companies in the US, France, and the Netherlands, there have been no successful cases in the UK. In response to our investigation, Dr Alison Cave, MHRA Chief Safety Officer, said: "We express our sympathies with those harmed by the historic use of Diethylstilbestrol (DES). "We are continuing to invest significant resources to locate historical documentation relating to regulatory decisions on DES made in the 1970s, over 50 years ago. Due to the age and format of the records, this is a complex and time-consuming process. "We are living now in a different regulatory era….Today, the requirement for patients to be directly provided with information about their medicine is underpinned by legislation." look seriously at these allegations. Health Secretary, Wes Streeting.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
UK ‘long overdue' a conversation about NHS funding, says Javid
Sir Sajid, also a former health secretary, said the country 'cannot afford' to 'bury our heads in the sand' when it comes to how the UK pays for healthcare. His comments are part of the foreword for the PolicyExchange's report The NHS – A Suitable Case For Treatment. The centre-right thinktank suggests that 'better quality healthcare' could be delivered 'by moving from our present entirely socialised model to a hybrid model with a significant social insurance component'. They also advocate changes such as removing free prescriptions for over-60s, but the report says that 'under no circumstances' should the UK try to replicate the US model of healthcare. Introducing the paper, Sir Sajid described the NHS as 'one of our country's most treasured and beloved national institutions'. 'We've come to a crossroads. A serious conversation with taxpayers about how we continue funding their favourite national institution is long overdue,' he said. He said that the UK is left with the options of putting more money into healthcare through tax rises or 'reforming' the system. 'What we cannot afford to do is to bury our heads in the sand,' he added. 'The responsible politician, the one who is concerned with the national interest, must look at every option for reform,' Sir Sajid said. The PolicyExchange report says that 'under no circumstances should the UK consider moving towards the US model', but that other countries 'with some sort of insurance-based model do much better' such as France, Germany and Singapore. 'We believe that better quality healthcare with universal coverage and improved long-term funding sustainability could be secured by moving from our present entirely socialised model to a hybrid model with a significant social insurance component,' the report says. Alongside a shift towards a 'social-insurance based system of financing healthcare', the thinktank made a number of recommendations for reforms that could be made within the existing NHS model. Among the changes the PolicyExchange suggest are a £20 charge for visiting a GP, with low-income groups exempt. They also say that people over 60 should no longer be universally eligible for free prescriptions, and the exemption should be determined by your income. They also advocate charges for 'more luxurious hospital accommodation', which they say could raise £700million. PolicyExchange advocate a system where universal healthcare coverage is available, and a basic model can be supplemented by other policies. The Government would regulate insurers and healthcare providers, and they say the system should still be called the NHS, with the main change being the way it is financed.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
UK ‘long overdue' a conversation about NHS funding, says Javid
Sir Sajid, also a former health secretary, said the country 'cannot afford' to 'bury our heads in the sand' when it comes to how the UK pays for healthcare. His comments are part of the foreword for the PolicyExchange's report The NHS – A Suitable Case For Treatment. The centre-right thinktank suggests that 'better quality healthcare' could be delivered 'by moving from our present entirely socialised model to a hybrid model with a significant social insurance component'. They also advocate changes such as removing free prescriptions for over-60s, but the report says that 'under no circumstances' should the UK try to replicate the US model of healthcare. Introducing the paper, Sir Sajid described the NHS as 'one of our country's most treasured and beloved national institutions'. 'We've come to a crossroads. A serious conversation with taxpayers about how we continue funding their favourite national institution is long overdue,' he said. He said that the UK is left with the options of putting more money into healthcare through tax rises or 'reforming' the system. Sir Sajid said 'we cannot afford to do is to bury our heads in the sand' (Aaron Chown/PA) 'What we cannot afford to do is to bury our heads in the sand,' he added. 'The responsible politician, the one who is concerned with the national interest, must look at every option for reform,' Sir Sajid said. The PolicyExchange report says that 'under no circumstances should the UK consider moving towards the US model', but that other countries 'with some sort of insurance-based model do much better' such as France, Germany and Singapore. 'We believe that better quality healthcare with universal coverage and improved long-term funding sustainability could be secured by moving from our present entirely socialised model to a hybrid model with a significant social insurance component,' the report says. Alongside a shift towards a 'social-insurance based system of financing healthcare', the thinktank made a number of recommendations for reforms that could be made within the existing NHS model. Among the changes the PolicyExchange suggest are a £20 charge for visiting a GP, with low-income groups exempt. They also say that people over 60 should no longer be universally eligible for free prescriptions, and the exemption should be determined by your income. They also advocate charges for 'more luxurious hospital accommodation', which they say could raise £700million. PolicyExchange advocate a system where universal healthcare coverage is available, and a basic model can be supplemented by other policies. The Government would regulate insurers and healthcare providers, and they say the system should still be called the NHS, with the main change being the way it is financed.
