Latest news with #NationalScreeningCommittee
BBC News
5 days ago
- Health
- BBC News
Cervical screening changes set to start in Jersey
Patients in Jersey will receive a more personalised cervical screening service from July, health bosses have Government of Jersey said it would be following recommendations from the UK National Screening Committee due to more accurate human papillomavirus (HPV) testing being screening detects HPV - the type of infection which is the main cause of cervical changes meant patients deemed to be at a low risk of cervical cancer would be tested less frequently, the government added. From July, women or people with a cervix who are aged 25 to 49 and test negative, or have previously tested negative for HPV and therefore at low risk of cervical cancer, will be invited to screenings at five-year intervals rather than three, the government whose samples indicated the presence of HPV, or had a recent history of HPV, would continue to be invited to more frequent screenings, it Fiona Nelson, clinical lead for cervical screening, said the new HPV test picked up problems earlier than older screening Nelson added: "The HPV test is an objective test which means the sample is not dependent on a person looking at cells and making a judgment and this means there are fewer missed cases."
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Why scientists are resistant to prostate cancer screening
If you could choose to never know you had cancer, even if it meant a slightly raised risk of death decades down the line, would you take it? Many may choose to say wilfully ignorant, especially if knowing would lead to a string of invasive procedures that could cause more problems than they solve. This is the trouble with prostate cancer screening and why, despite ongoing pressure from charities, the National Screening Committee (NSC) and scientists are reluctant to add it to the list of routine NHS checks. Put simply, it does little good and can cause significant harm. The current screening tool is the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test which is used in some European countries such as Lithuania. But a 15-year trial, led by the universities of Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge, estimated one in six cancers found by PSA screenings were over-diagnosed, leading to unnecessary treatment of tumours that would not have caused any harm in someone's lifetime. For every 1,000 men screened, it is estimated that testing saves just one life. 'It's a very emotional thing,' said Prof Freddie Hamdy of the University of Oxford, who has spent years researching the benefits of prostate cancer screening. 'You have celebrities who come up, and the obvious example is Chris Hoy, who was diagnosed at the early age of 48 with a disease which is seemingly not curable, and that triggers a lot of emotions, 'We must find all these cancers'. 'What people don't realise is all the consequences of trying to find these few cancers on the larger population.' Men aged 50 or over can request a screening test, but the impact can be profound. What is often mis-sold as a simple blood test can set them on a lifelong path of scans, surgery, side effects and stress. Arguably, those who are found to have low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer would be better off not knowing. Research shows that they have around a 97 per cent chance of survival for 15 years whether they choose radiotherapy, surgery or simply monitoring the tumour. Many will be spooked into going ahead with procedures, even if there is little benefit. 'I saw in my clinic yesterday five new patients with prostate cancer,' added Prof Hamdy. 'Four out of five are unlikely to have benefited from knowing they've got cancer. Two chose to have radical treatments. 'It isn't just a blood test. You have essentially a man who is healthy, who has no symptoms, and told him he has cancer. 'Essentially what we've done, irrespective of how serious the disease is, we've given that man a new passport, a new identity, which he is going to have to live for the rest of his life. And that is a huge responsibility.' Those who opt for treatment face the prospect of being left incontinent and impotent. A study by the University of Bristol found that around half of men experienced urinary leakage and needed to wear pads after surgery to remove all or part of the prostate gland. Although it improved over time, one in five still experienced incontinence five years after the surgery. Likewise, research found that the number of men with impotency issues rose from around 33 per cent to 80 per cent following treatment. Jenny Donovan, professor of social medicine at the University of Bristol, said: 'This really affected some men severely. Loss of sex life can be devastating. 'Will we cause more harm than good by screening? We think yes, if we repeat this cycle of over-detection and over-treatment. 'It's an intuitively nice idea. We're not in principle against it, it's just more complicated than it seems.' Even those who do not choose invasive procedures, face a lifetime of active monitoring and the constant fear that each new appointment could bring bad news. One man wrote in the study: 'When I first went for the active monitoring, I thought 'well this isn't going to be a problem, I'll be able to sail though this because I know the cancer is being contained and I know I am being monitored'. 'But then it wasn't in reality as simple as that because I knew that I had cancer and it messes things up. You think you can handle it, but it's always there niggling in your mind.' If all the evidence suggests the benefits of screening does not outweigh the risks, why then do charities like Prostate Cancer UK advocate for a national screening programme? The answer probably lies in the figures. Prostate cancer deaths are the second-most common cause of cancer death in the UK, killing 12,000 people each year, making it a major public health problem. Something needs to be done, but screening could bring more challenges than it solves. When Kazakhstan introduced population screening for prostate cancer in 2013, they were forced to close the program within five years because the health service could not cope the influx of low-risk prostate cancers, which did not need treatment. Richard Martin, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol said: 'What we don't want to do is compound that problem by adding harm and not reducing those 12,000 deaths a year. That would be a disaster.' This week, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, declared his support for a national prostate cancer screening programme, adding that he was 'particularly sympathetic' to the idea. Currently the National Screening Committee, which keeps a rolling review on the issue, is looking into whether certain at-risk groups could be targeted, but is unlikely to recommend a national programme. Derek Rosario, honorary professor at Sheffield Hallam University and clinical advisor to the NSC, said: 'The NSC is still considering evidence around perhaps identifying high-risk populations, but the real difficulty is reliably identifying high-risk populations for prostate cancer. Lethal prostate cancer is not quite as straightforward as it might seem. 'So there is no formal review of national screening going on, but the space is moving all the time.' In response to Mr Streeting's intervention, Prof Hamdy said: 'Fund research and we'll give you the evidence. 'There seems to be a lot more attention given to, 'let's find the cancers, and then we'll sort it afterwards'. And what we're saying is, before you put the needle in a man's prostate, just think.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
09-04-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Why scientists are resistant to prostate cancer screening
If you could choose to never know you had cancer, even if it meant a slightly raised risk of death decades down the line, would you take it? Many may choose to say wilfully ignorant, especially if knowing would lead to a string of invasive procedures that could cause more problems than they solve. This is the trouble with prostate cancer screening and why, despite ongoing pressure from charities, the National Screening Committee (NSC) and scientists are reluctant to add it to the list of routine NHS checks. Put simply, it does little good and can cause significant harm. The current screening tool is the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test which is used in some European countries such as Lithuania. But a 15-year trial, led by the universities of Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge, estimated one in six cancers found by PSA screenings were over-diagnosed, leading to unnecessary treatment of tumours that would not have caused any harm in someone's lifetime. For every 1,000 men screened, it is estimated that testing saves just one life. 'It's a very emotional thing,' said Prof Freddie Hamdy of the University of Oxford, who has spent years researching the benefits of prostate cancer screening. 'You have celebrities who come up, and the obvious example is Chris Hoy, who was diagnosed at the early age of 48 with a disease which is seemingly not curable, and that triggers a lot of emotions, 'We must find all these cancers'. 'What people don't realise is all the consequences of trying to find these few cancers on the larger population.' Men aged 50 or over can request a screening test, but the impact can be profound. What is often mis-sold as a simple blood test can set them on a lifelong path of scans, surgery, side effects and stress. Arguably, those who are found to have low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer would be better off not knowing. Research shows that they have around a 97 per cent chance of survival for 15 years whether they choose radiotherapy, surgery or simply monitoring the tumour. Not 'just a blood test' Many will be spooked into going ahead with procedures, even if there is little benefit. 'I saw in my clinic yesterday five new patients with prostate cancer,' added Prof Hamdy. 'Four out of five are unlikely to have benefited from knowing they've got cancer. Two chose to have radical treatments. 'It isn't just a blood test. You have essentially a man who is healthy, who has no symptoms, and told him he has cancer. 'Essentially what we've done, irrespective of how serious the disease is, we've given that man a new passport, a new identity, which he is going to have to live for the rest of his life. And that is a huge responsibility.' Those who opt for treatment face the prospect of being left incontinent and impotent. A study by the University of Bristol found that around half of men experienced urinary leakage and needed to wear pads after surgery to remove all or part of the prostate gland. Although it improved over time, one in five still experienced incontinence five years after the surgery. Likewise, research found that the number of men with impotency issues rose from around 33 per cent to 80 per cent following treatment. Jenny Donovan, professor of social medicine at the University of Bristol, said: 'This really affected some men severely. Loss of sex life can be devastating. 'Will we cause more harm than good by screening? We think yes, if we repeat this cycle of over-detection and over-treatment. 'It's an intuitively nice idea. We're not in principle against it, it's just more complicated than it seems.' Even those who do not choose invasive procedures, face a lifetime of active monitoring and the constant fear that each new appointment could bring bad news. One man wrote in the study: 'When I first went for the active monitoring, I thought 'well this isn't going to be a problem, I'll be able to sail though this because I know the cancer is being contained and I know I am being monitored'. 'But then it wasn't in reality as simple as that because I knew that I had cancer and it messes things up. You think you can handle it, but it's always there niggling in your mind.' 'That would be a disaster' If all the evidence suggests the benefits of screening does not outweigh the risks, why then do charities like Prostate Cancer UK advocate for a national screening programme? The answer probably lies in the figures. Prostate cancer deaths are the second-most common cause of cancer death in the UK, killing 12,000 people each year, making it a major public health problem. Something needs to be done, but screening could bring more challenges than it solves. When Kazakhstan introduced population screening for prostate cancer in 2013, they were forced to close the program within five years because the health service could not cope the influx of low-risk prostate cancers, which did not need treatment. Richard Martin, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol said: 'What we don't want to do is compound that problem by adding harm and not reducing those 12,000 deaths a year. That would be a disaster.' This week, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, declared his support for a national prostate cancer screening programme, adding that he was 'particularly sympathetic' to the idea. Currently the National Screening Committee, which keeps a rolling review on the issue, is looking into whether certain at-risk groups could be targeted, but is unlikely to recommend a national programme. Derek Rosario, honorary professor at Sheffield Hallam University and clinical advisor to the NSC, said: 'The NSC is still considering evidence around perhaps identifying high-risk populations, but the real difficulty is reliably identifying high-risk populations for prostate cancer. Lethal prostate cancer is not quite as straightforward as it might seem. 'So there is no formal review of national screening going on, but the space is moving all the time.' In response to Mr Streeting's intervention, Prof Hamdy said: 'Fund research and we'll give you the evidence. 'There seems to be a lot more attention given to, 'let's find the cancers, and then we'll sort it afterwards'. And what we're saying is, before you put the needle in a man's prostate, just think.'
Telegraph
09-04-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Wes Streeting hints at chance of a national prostate screening
Wes Streeting has signalled his support for a national prostate cancer screening programme for men. The Health Secretary told MPs he would 'like to see' the NHS proactively offer men tests for the disease. The UK's National Screening Committee is currently assessing whether or not a national screening programme should be rolled out, and if so, what test should be used. The current prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is a blood test which is used to check for prostate conditions including prostate cancer or an enlarged prostate, but not routinely offered because of fears of overdiagnosis. Men over the age of 50 can ask their GP for a PSA test, even if they do not have symptoms. Asked whether he would like to see a national prostate cancer screening programme for men at high risk of the disease, Mr Streeting told the House of Commons' Health and Social Care Committee: 'I would like to see that. 'But, and this is such an important but, decisions in this area do need to be evidence-based and evidence-led, and that's why we have a National Screening Committee. 'So I've asked the National Screening Committee to look at this, and they are. 'I think there is an even more compelling case around groups that are at higher risk of prostate cancer. 'But ultimately - and I think this is where as politicians we have such a responsibility to kind of sometimes resist the temptation to sign every petition or to sign up to every campaign. 'We've got to make sure that decisions we make are evidence-led and evidence-based.' He also admitted to MPs on the committee his plans to cut NHS bureaucracy could cost £1 billion in redundancy payouts. The combined costs of abolishing NHS England – the quango responsible for running the health service – and axing tens of thousands of office-based jobs across the country is likely to hit eight figures. The Health Secretary also suggested some of the funds to cover redundancy packages could come directly from the Treasury rather than from the Department of Health 's existing budget. The Telegraph previously revealed that cutting 50 per cent of staff across NHS England and the Department could cost up to £800 million. Plans to go further and slash operational costs at England's 42 integrated care boards (ICBs), which oversee local NHS services, could take this figure past £1 billion. Asked by MPs about the potential cost of his NHS reforms hitting £1 billion, Mr Streeting said it was not an 'unreasonable ballpark figure'. 'We won't know the precise numbers until we have confirmed what the ultimate size and shape of the organisation will be, the impact in terms of head count, and how much it will cost in order to treat people fairly whose jobs are at risk, and then whose jobs are not carried forward,' he said. 'But I didn't think that was an unreasonable ballpark figure, and I would kind of justify that cost on the basis of the fact we will more than pay for that in terms of the savings that are achieved year on year,' he added. Mr Streeting said there had been a tendency to 'look at some of the costs of change and transformation and think, 'oh, we're not going to bother, this is in the too difficult box', and we just can't afford to do that as a country any longer'. 'I would argue that we should have done this a long time ago,' he added. Sir Jim Mackey, the new NHS England chief executive, added that there would be 'a really significant, rapid return on investment', and that he had 'started the discussion with Treasury about how redundancy costs are managed'. The pair also suggested that Rachel Reeves could stump up some of the cash to pay off NHS staff either through compulsory or voluntary redundancy packages. When asked about where the money would come from, the pair said it was 'subject to discussion with the Treasury' and had 'not been agreed yet'. The plans will see about 50 per cent of the 15,300 staff at NHS England and 3,300 staff at the Department made redundant. Mr Streeting told MPs this figure was calculated based on duplication of roles, devolving more power to local areas and potential savings, but that he was not 'so dogmatic that if we ended up just below 50 per cent, or just above 50 per cent, that I would be feeling like we failed one way or another'. Meanwhile, ICBs currently employ about 25,000 staff. If they are cut by 50 per cent, along with staff working at the centre, it would mean more than 20,000 redundancies in total. Under current NHS redundancy rules, staff get one month's pay for every year's service up to a maximum of £80,000. A previous round of 951 voluntary redundancies and early retirements in the period of 2022-23 cost the health service £75 million, amounting to an average of £79,000 per employee. The Department of Health has also paid nearly £450 million in the past five years to staff in the Department and its agencies who have taken voluntary or compulsory redundancy. The Health Secretary has previously said the cost of running NHS England amounts to £2 billion per year.
The Independent
08-04-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Streeting signals support for prostate screening if backed by evidence
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has suggested that he would support a national prostate cancer screening programme for men at higher risk of disease if it is backed by the evidence. The UK's National Screening Committee is currently assessing whether or not a national screening programme should be rolled out. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is a blood test which is used to check for prostate conditions including prostate cancer or an enlarged prostate. Routine PSA testing is not currently offered on the NHS, but patients may be offered a PSA test if a GP suspects they have prostate cancer. And men over the age of 50 can ask their GP for a PSA test, even if they do not have symptoms. There have been an increasing number of calls for the test to be rolled out across the health service. But others have argued that widespread use of the test could identify cases which may not have caused problems or needed treatment. Asked whether he would like to see a national prostate cancer screening programme for men at high risk of the disease, Mr Streeting told the House of Commons' Health and Social Care Committee: 'I would like to see that. 'But, and this is such an important but, decisions in this area do need to be evidence-based and evidence-led, and that's why we have a National Screening Committee. 'So I've asked the National Screening Committee to look at this, and they are. 'I think there is an even more compelling case around groups that are at higher risk of prostate cancer. 'But ultimately – and I think this is where as politicians we have such a responsibility to kind of sometimes resist the temptation to sign every petition or to sign up to every campaign. 'We've got to make sure that decisions we make are evidence-led and evidence-based. 'So sure, I would like to see, you know, screening in this place.' But he added: 'I can go on BBC Breakfast as a politician, as a health secretary, and say, 'Great news. I'm backing Chris Hoy, his campaign. I'm doing what everyone wants'. And people will kind of say, 'Great, oh, really good to see the Government doing this'. 'But I'm only going to do that if the evidence base suggests that is the best use of a valuable resource and certainly constrained resources, which I know is not always the most popular answer, but I think it's the right answer. 'I think all of us as politicians kind of need to show that restraint and discipline sometimes of not just signing up to the latest campaign, unless the evidence tells us this is the right thing to do.' Earlier on Tuesday he told LBC Radio: 'This is a really important campaign on a couple of fronts: firstly, awareness is really important… making sure that people do go and get checked is important if there are any worrying signs or symptoms that people go and get checked and don't feel awkward about talking about it. 'There shouldn't be a taboo around this, any more than there should be a taboo around issues like breast cancer or anything else, frankly. 'And secondly, there is a big campaign running at the moment for better cancer screening, and the National Screening Committee is looking very carefully at this moment. 'As soon as I've got anything to report back on that front, I'll be back.' Prostate Cancer UK has called for guidelines to be changed so GPs can have 'proactive' discussions about getting tested with men at highest risk of disease. Amy Rylance, assistant director of health improvement at the charity, said: 'It's great to hear Wes Streeting express his support for a prostate cancer screening programme, and acknowledging that some men have a higher risk of getting the disease than others. 'We are a data and evidence-based charity. We know that diagnosing prostate cancer is safer and more accurate than ever before, and that targeted screening of the most at-risk men will save thousands of men's lives a year. We submitted our evidence backing this up to the National Screening Committee over two years ago – it's about time we got a decision. 'While we wait for the National Screening Committee's decision, the Government can do something right now to help men. Prostate Cancer UK is calling on the Government to change outdated NHS guidelines so that GPs can start having proactive conversations with men at the highest risk of getting prostate cancer, telling them about their risk and the option to get tested.'
