Patients coping with “unfashionable” cancers are being ignored by scientists despite record spending on cancer research, a new report by the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) reveals.
Cancers with high death rates including lung and pancreatic cancer, receive only a small percentage of public money, compared to five cancers holding some of the highest survival rates, including breast and leukaemia, which receive over 60% of the money.
Lung cancer is one of the deadliest, with 80% of victims dying within a year of being diagnosed - often because it is discovered too late. Experts on the disease are crying out to scientists to stop ignoring the statistics.
Devastatingly, cancers such as these are ignored due to their low public profile and lack of celebrity campaigning.
More money is poured into cancers that have higher breakthrough success rates and that are easier to study.
The medical director of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation says, “It is soul destroying that nothing much has changed. Lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer deaths but is still stigmatised and attracts an unacceptably low amount of research funding. We have known since 2002 how bad the situation was but progress has been too slow and just not good enough. This is a horrid disease and a horrible way to die.”
The report reveals where public and charitable money was spent between 2002 and 2006 and the details will be presented at the NCRI annual conference. Chairman of the NCRI, Ken Calman said,
“This is extraordinarily useful data because it shows where things need to change. We need to use it to bring the right people from the scientific community together in order to stimulate new ideas, because at the moment, for cancers like lung, oesophageal and pancreatic, it is difficult to see where the next big breakthrough is coming from.”
The report will underline exactly how research projects are funded. Dr Lesley Walker of Cancer Research UK said,
“Most scientists do not have a permanent job. They are dependent on short-term grants, so they are only as good as their last research project. This means for a scientist to enter a field where there are few leads is a high-risk career move.”
Today in Britain, breast cancer is the most common, with cases rising each year. It is therefore felt that the amount of money poured into this research area was more than justifiable. Dr Norman Freshney of Breakthrough Breast Cancer states,
“A lot of the research for breast cancer is relevant for other types of cancer as well, so the knowledge is transferable.”
In 2006 £393m was spent on cancer reseach, only 4% of which went into prevention. The wider professional community generally feel this is not enough. Jane Cope of the NCRI, said:
“The proportions reflect the historical way in which medical research has been funded in the UK. Biological, hard-science, peer-reviewed research has been dominant, while other areas have fared less well. The increase in funding for prevention from 2 to 4 per cent is a step in the right direction but we are very aware the public wants us to continue this.”
Six years ago, lung cancer screening was suggested. Only today, a new pilot scheme - the first of its kind in the UK - will be announced. However, it could be over ten years before a national screening programme is considered.
Lorraine Williamson, 48, from Surrey, survived lung cancer, thanks to an early diagnosis. She said,
“I am living proof that lung cancer is a curable disease if it is diagnosed early. I think it is scandalous research has been so grossly underfunded and thousands of people continue to die every year. This disease has so much negative publicity around it and there are a lot of myths. It is not just a smoker’s disease; it can affect anybody.”
Ms Cope of the NCRI added,
“For cancers with higher mortality rates, there are few survivors to lobby or campaign, nor are there many glamorous women supporting these causes. But if scientists want to benefit all patients they need to spread their expertise round a bit more.”
