Thanks to Paul Parmenter at antimisandry.com for bringing this to my attention.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ncancer116.xml

NHS U-turn on prostate cancer treatment
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:55am GMT 17/12/2007


A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing body.

The groundbreaking ultrasound therapy has been shown to kill nine out of 10 prostate tumours, and five years after treatment, 80 per cent of patients show no sign of the cancer recurring.

Compared with surgery or conventional radiotherapy treatment, it is not invasive and is far less likely to lead to devastating side effects such as impotence or incontinence.

Suitable for treatment in the early stages of the disease, when it is not known how quickly it will spread, the ultrasound therapy is regarded by doctors as a vital new weapon in the battle against prostate cancer.

The UK's most prevalent cancer among men, prostate cancer kills 10,000 a year, with 35,000 more cases diagnosed annually. A third of men over 50 contract it.

Three years ago, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) said men across the country should be offered the treatment, called High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (Hifu), free on the NHS.

But The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that Nice has now decided to reverse that decision. In the New Year, the controversial rationing body will massively restrict the use of the HIFU treatment.

Instead of it being available to all prostate cancer sufferers, it will now be restricted only to those who have already failed to respond to conventional treatment and whose cancer has returned.

The decision, set to be made in February, means Hifu will not be available to the vast majority of prostate cancer sufferers.

Cancer charities and senior doctors last night attacked the move as a U-turn.

Mark Emberton, a consultant urologist at University College Hospital, London, said he was worried that patients would be forced into the private sector, "which would be a disaster", if they wanted the treatment.

He also questioned the logic of only offering Hifu to men whose cancer had returned, while denying it to patients in the early stages of the disease.

Meanwhile, Stephen Brown, a consultant urologist at Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport, said: "We think Hifu is a really good option for patients who want a lesser procedure."

Prof Roger Kirby, who chairs the Prostate UK charity, also decried the decision. He said: "Restricting the treatments available will have a massive impact on the patient."

Since Nice made its original ruling, permitting the use of Hifu, just 300 men have been given the treatment on the NHS.

Primary care trusts have so far been slow to foot the bill for the treatment, which is one-off but costs about £13,000.

This amount compares with £3,000 for radiotherapy, which takes six weeks, and £5,000 for surgery.

It is understood that Nice, which has refused to comment on its new guidelines, will rule that there is insufficient evidence to prove that Hifu has long-term value.

The U-turn comes despite the research published last month in the European Journal of Urology which found that eight out of 10 men were healthy five years after being treated with Hifu.



O.K., just so we're on the same page....there's a new, non-invasive medical procedure with far fewer negative side effects available for fighting prostate cancer, an affliction that 1/3 of men will suffer from by the time they reach 50. This procedure is 90% effective against tumors....but they're not going to make it available to men unless other more invasive, more damaging procedures have already failed, a point at which things could conceivably have progressed to where treatment is no longer effectual. Their reasoning appears to be because the new procedure is more expensive. I'm betting, if you figure the costs of multiple procedures along with the costs of treating the damaging side effects of the more invasive treatments, ultrasound therapy is probably pretty cost effective in the long run.

It's quite clear how much value Britain's NHS places on the health and lives of men. If they found a 90% effective, highly non-invasive treatment for breast cancer, do you think they'd deny women the opportunity to undergo it? If they did, the backlash would be immediate and I've not doubt their decision would be quickly rescinded. This is the message men get time and time again about how much value society places on them. Do you see millions of ribbons for prostate cancer everywhere you look? You're probably wondering if they even have a ribbon for prostate cancer. They do, it's blue...but the fact that most people don't know that is enough said, in my opinion.
In case you're hoping the U.S. is a little less biased concerning gender in health care, think again. Here are a few enlightening statistics for you from National Prostate Cancer Coalition,
http://www.fightprostatecancer.org/s...s_iv_ctrl=1381


On average, more men are diagnosed with prostate cancer annually than women are with breast cancer. While the fatality rate is higher for breast cancer - about 40,000, compared to prostate cancer's 31,000 (these figures averaged due to discrepancies in the multiple reporting sources) - the funding disparity is beyond debate. According to the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, "only about 7 percent of federal cancer research dollars are spent on prostate cancer research." That is about $485 million for prostate research, compared to nearly $870 million for breast cancer research, or, if broken down per fatality, equals, $21,800 per breast cancer fatality, as opposed to $16,700 per prostate cancer fatality.

The discrepancies are obvious and appalling.
Here is NICE's email address in case anyone would care to voice their opinions on this new policy.

nice@nice.org.uk

More...