Less Survivable Cancers

I am told that the Minister is on her way, but we will proceed because so many people want to speak. I remind Members to bob if they intend to make a speech, to give me a fighting chance of working out how long each Member will have to speak. It looks like Back Benchers will have an average of three minutes each, once we start.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered less survivable cancers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital; also, a family member has shares in a medical company. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, which I first asked for six months ago—[Interruption.]

Whose phone is that?

I apologise.

Is that the Minister calling?

Yes, that was the Minister calling me to apologise. [Laughter.]

I asked the Committee for the debate six months ago, but having it one month before the probable publication of a national cancer plan is not a bad date for it. I also thank the less survivable cancers taskforce, Cancer Research UK and Myeloma UK for their help and guidance in securing and preparing for this debate.

As I have mentioned many times here and in the main Chamber, I am a cancer survivor. The experience has shown me how important early diagnosis and effective treatment are to our outcomes. My diagnosis was delayed, because I was sent away by the first GP I saw and had to wait several months again before being diagnosed with breast cancer. Fortunately, my treatment was successful, but many others are not so lucky, especially those with less survivable cancers.

Every year in the UK, 90,000 people are diagnosed with a less survivable cancer—cancers of the brain, liver, lungs, pancreas, oesophagus and stomach. Together, they represent 40% of all cancer deaths and account for 67,000 deaths every year. The less survivable cancers have been overlooked for far too long. While many other cancers have seen major advancements in survival, survival rates for those six cancers have remained staggeringly low for the past 25 years. The collective five-year survival rate for those cancers is just 16%. The sad reality for the 90,000 people diagnosed with one of the cancers is that 75,000 will not survive more than five years. That is a school play someone will not see, a set of exam results that they will miss, or a first day at university, a graduation, a significant birthday of their own or of a loved one, or the birth of a grandchild that someone will not see.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, in particular given his personal circumstances. He rightly outlined the need for early diagnosis. Does he agree that that is particularly true of those of us who are males, who sometimes have an extreme reluctance to go to a GP to ascertain what might be wrong? That needs to be addressed urgently.

It does. The more that people like me and others who have survived cancer talk about it, and about our experience of a delay and having the cancer spread, the more that will help others to come forward.

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate and the excellent speech he is making. He mentioned that the Government have said they will shortly publish the national cancer plan, which will include details of how they will improve outcomes for patients, speed up diagnosis and treatment, ensure that patients have access to new treatments and technology, and above all, improve cancer survival rates. Does he agree that it is critical that the plan also features key measures to address less survivable cancers, including supporting the roll-out of innovative detection tests and evaluating their use, supporting campaigns to raise awareness of symptoms, and producing a strategy for earlier and faster diagnosis?

The hon. Member makes a very good intervention. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that this is covered in the national cancer plan. From what I am hearing, I am optimistic that it will be.

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. My constituent Fiona Tweedie asked me to attend this debate because she sadly lost her husband to a brain tumour last year. She asked me to flag, in relation to the national cancer strategy, the fact that it is very difficult in Scotland to access clinical trials, and if someone is based in Scotland, they cannot access English trials. Does the hon. Member agree that this needs to be a genuinely national strategy, and that it must not allow different parts of the UK to take different directions?

The hon. Member makes a good point; we definitely need more clinical trials in this country. We have been lagging behind in the last few years, and we need them nationally, rather than just in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland. That would be advantageous for both drug companies and the people who benefit from those trials.

For many of these less survivable cancers, survival rates in the UK lag behind other countries. We can see from our international counterparts, including Australia, Belgium, Denmark and the US, that progress is achievable, and that system reforms can play a key role in driving better patient outcomes. For example, the UK is ranked 29th out of 33 countries for pancreatic cancer survival. It is fair to ask the Minister: why is the UK ranked so low? It is also fair to ask the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson): why are we ranked so low after the Conservatives’ 14 years in Government? Perhaps it is due to the challenges in how our healthcare and cancer services are organised, and our service delivery, rather than the availability of treatment options. It is vital that we learn from our international counterparts and understand what systemic changes they have made to drive progress.

The all-party parliamentary group on less survivable cancers, of which I am a member, launched an inquiry into earlier detection and faster diagnosis. During the inquiry, the APPG heard from people with lived experience—clinicians, researchers, charities and the industry—about what vital measures are needed in the national cancer plan to improve earlier detection and faster diagnosis. The APPG found that if earlier diagnosis rates were doubled, an additional 7,500 lives would be saved every year. Deaths from those cancers could quickly be reduced by 10%.

Faster diagnosis is integral to saving lives and improving outcomes for people impacted by less survivable cancers. Simply put, it enables patients to access treatment and care much quicker, increasing their chances of survival. We are currently far from achieving this: just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 or 2, compared with 54% for all other cancers. Concerningly, brain tumours are diagnosed in emergency settings, which is closely linked to worse outcomes.

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this invaluable debate. My constituent Billy was just four years old when he passed away due to DIPG—diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma—which is an incurable child brain tumour cancer. Every nine days a child is diagnosed with it. At the request of Billy’s parents I asked the Government whether there was any more they could do for brain cancer research. I am delighted that the Government have since announced that they have allocated £13.7 million in funding to the National Institute for Health and Care Research brain tumour research consortium. Does my hon. Friend agree that allocating research into rarer cancers not only benefits the children who suffer from these horrific diseases but enhances our research and development capability more broadly, clinically, which is also a vital industry for the UK?

Order. Interventions have to be a lot shorter. If Members are on the list to speak, it would be helpful if they saved their points for their speeches so that we can fit everyone in.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I am really sorry to hear about young Billy. The £13.7 million being put into research has to be welcomed and we should thank the Government for that.

The first recommendation is to invest in greater research, detection tests, and tools to support GPs when identifying the symptoms of less survivable cancers. GPs face difficulties in identifying vague symptoms linked to less survivable cancers, especially as they see only a small number of cases each year, and many of the symptoms overlap with those of less serious health conditions. For example, a patient with oesophageal cancer might suffer from nausea and have difficulty breathing.

I saw that lack of exposure at first hand. The first GP that I saw did not think that as a man I would be able to have breast cancer. Patients often visit their GP multiple times before being referred for further diagnostic tests. For example, currently people with pancreatic cancer visit their GP between two and five times before being referred for a CT scan. GPs lack the necessary detection tools and tests to easily identify vague symptoms earlier. But it does not have to be this way. Innovative technologies, such as Dxcover for brain cancer and Cytosponge for oesophageal cancer, are already in development and can help healthcare professionals to identify those cancers earlier and more easily.

The second recommendation is to bring together research and medical communities and establish centres of excellence for each of the less survivable cancers as key forums for knowledge sharing and collaboration. Collaboration between researchers and the medical community is essential for enhancing innovation and successfully embedding new diagnostic tools into the health system. Centres of excellence can connect specialists across research and clinical sectors, bolstering knowledge sharing and enhancing collaboration. Centres of excellence should be established by the national research community, supported by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There should also be more collaboration with colleagues across the world.

Order. Before I call Paulette Hamilton, I want to say that we will stick to a three-minute limit, but it is very tight. I may have to shave a minute or two off the Front-Bench speeches at the end so that I can get everyone in. We will see how it goes.