One in six cancers – two million a year globally – are caused by largely treatable or preventable infections according to new research.The Lancet Infectious Diseases review, which looked at incidence rates for 27 cancers in 184 countries, found four main infections are responsible.

These four – human papillomaviruses, Helicobacter pylori and hepatitis B and C viruses – account for 1.9m cases of cervical, gut and liver cancers.

The team from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France says more efforts are needed to tackle these avoidable cases and recognise cancer as a communicable disease.

Most cases are in the developing world. The proportion of cancers related to infection is about three times higher in parts of the developing world, such as east Asia, than in developed countries like the UK – 22.9% versus 7.4%, respectively.

Nearly a third of cases occur in people younger than 50 years.

Among women, cancer of the cervix accounted for about half of the infection-related cancers. In men, more than 80% were liver and gastric cancers.

Drs Catherine de Martel and Martyn Plummer, who led the research, said: “Infections with certain viruses, bacteria, and parasites are some of the biggest and preventable causes of cancer worldwide

“Application of existing public-health methods for infection prevention, such as vaccination, safer injection practice, or antimicrobial treatments, could have a substantial effect on the future burden of cancer worldwide.”

Vaccines are available to protect against human papillomavirus (HPV) – which is linked to cancer of the cervix – and hepatitis B virus – an established cause of liver cancer.

And experts know that stomach cancer can be avoided by clearing the bacterial infection H. pylori from the gut using a course of antibiotics.

Commenting on the work, Dr Goodarz Danaei from Harvard School of Public Medicine in Boston, the US, said: “Since effective and relatively low-cost vaccines for HPV and HBV are available, increasing coverage should be a priority for health systems in high-burden countries.”

Jessica Harris of Cancer Research UK said: “It’s important that authorities worldwide make every effort to reduce the number of infection-related cancers, especially when many of these infections can be prevented. In the UK, infections are thought to be responsible for 3% of cancers, or around 9,700 cases each year.

“Vaccination against HPV, which causes cervical cancer, should go a long way towards reducing rates of this disease in the UK. But it’s important that uptake of the vaccination remains high. At a global level, if the vaccine were available in more countries, many thousands more cases could be prevented.”

Prostate cancer symptoms are unfortunately difficult to spot in the early stages of growth.Only when the cancer has advanced will symptoms usually appear- which is a bad cancer sign and contributes to the approximately 10,000 deaths in the UK every year.

If you experience any of the following symptoms, you must see a medical professional immediately:

• the prescence of blood in urine and/ or semen
• pain or burning sensation when urinating
• erectile dysfunction (inability to have or sustain an erection)
• uncomfortable or painful ejaculation
• in the upper thighs, hips, or lower back, a frequent pain or stiffness
• a general pain in the prostate area
• a need to urinate frequently, especially at nighttime
• difficulty in urinating, both in starting or holding back
• interrupted or weak flow of urine

There are several Risk Factors associated with Prostate Cancer:

• Age – For men with over fifty years of age, prostate cancer is most common.
• Family history – It is also an important indicator. If you have a close male relative who has suffered or is suffering from the disease, you are twice as probable to be diagnosed with prostate cancer yourself.
• Nationality – Your nationality and racial genetics may also play a part. Studies show, for example, that African-Americans are most at risk, followed by Americans and Europeans. Asians (particularly those that live in the East and Southeast portions of the continent) are the least at risk.
• Lifestyle – Even though, the evidence in often conflicting, in the development of prostate cancer, an individual’s lifestyle, and diet may also play an important part.

At present, while prostate cancer is not an avoidable disease, it can be mitigated by alterations in a person’s food consumption and general way of life.

The most commonly employed method of testing for prostate cancer is a basic prostate exam.

It involves a physician inserting a gloved, lubricated finger into the rectum so that the physician can feel the prostate, which is located a few inches up from the rectum. A healthy prostate feels firm; if prostate cancer is present, the prostate may have hard spots on it.

For those who are squeamish towards this type of testing, an alternative method is sometimes used.

Known as a prostate cancer PSA level test, blood is taken from the patient and screened for prostate-specific-antigen levels.

Prostate-specific-antigens are present in all men, but those with prostate cancer often have a heightened level of the antigen.

Alternatively men with the BRCA1 gene have a one in 11 chance of developing prostate cancer by the age of 65, it was found.

Other tests such as X-rays and bone scans may also be useful in detecting the cancer and determining the extent to which it has spread.

A faulty gene that increases the chances of breast cancer in women has been found to raise the risk of prostate cancer in men four fold.Men with a strong family history of either cancer in their family could be offered genetic tests to discover if they are carrying a faulty BRCA1 gene so their health can be monitored from an early age.

Men with the BRCA1 gene have a one in 11 chance of developing prostate cancer by the age of 65, it was found.

The faulty gene seemed to be linked to a particularly agressive form of cancer making early detection and treatment vital.

The study was conducted by the The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and published in the British Journal of Cancer.

In breast cancer BRCA1 increases the chances of developing the disease by five fold, giving them a six in ten chance of breast cancer compared with a one in eight chance for healthy women.

It has led some women with faulty genes to have preemptive mastectomies rather than live with high risk of breast cancer.  BRCA1 is also associated with ovarian cancer.

In the study 913 men underwent genetic screening, with results obtained from 886 and four men were found to have alterations in BRCA1. Three out of those four men were diagnosed with prostate cancer before the age of 65.

As well as detecting BRCA1 in men with a history of cancer in their families to identify those at greater risk, genetic screening of men who already have the disease could improve their treatment, the researchers said.

There are already drugs in use that target BRCA1.

The findings come after other research showed that HIFU (high intensity focused ultrasound) can provide the ‘perfect’ outcome for nine out of ten men with early stage prostate cancer. The majority of men treated were continent, had good sexual function and were free of cancer after 12 months where as traditional surgery or radiotherapy could only offer that in half of cases.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancers affecting men in Britain with 37,000 men diagnosed each year. It claims 10,000 lives every year.

Other faulty genes have been implicated in prostate cancer including a mutation in HOXB13 which increased the risk of the disease 20 fold. It is relatively rare, occuring in less than two per cent of men with prostate cancer.

A new treatment for prostate cancer can rid the disease from nine in ten men without debilitating side effects, a study has found, leading to new hope for tens of thousands of men.It is hoped the new treatment, which involves heating only the tumours with a highly focused ultrasound, will mean men can be treated without an overnight stay in hospital and avoiding the distressing side effects associated with current therapies.

A study has found that focal HIFU, high-intensity focused ultrasound, provides the ‘perfect’ outcome of no major side effects and free of cancer 12 months after treatment in nine out of ten cases.

Traditional surgery or radiotherapy can only provide the perfect outcome in half of cases currently.

Experts have said the results are ‘very encouraging’ and were a ‘paradigm’ shift in treatment of the disease.

It is hoped that large scale trials can now begin so the treatment could be offered routinely on the NHS within five years.

A larger trial is already recruiting patients and men interested in the treatment should speak to their cancer doctor or GP about being referrred, experts said.

Prostate cancer is the commonest cancer in men with more than 37,000 diagnoses each year contributing to approximately 10,000 deaths.

Current treatments include surgery to remove the whole prostate or radiotherapy. Both of which can effectively treat the cancer but often cause side effects such as incontinence and impotence.

However in many men prostate cancer will not progress to a life threatening disease meaning that radical treatment risks side effects unnecessarily. For this reason, research is now focused on reducing side effects.

Focal HIFU involves careful selection of tumours, as small as a grain of rice, within the prostate gland and targeting them with highly focused ultrasound to heat them and destroy them.

The advantage over previous HIFU and other treatments is that damage to surrounding tissue is minimised, meaning there are far fewer side effects.

In the study Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer published in the journal Lancet Oncology, 41 men were treated with focal HIFU. After 12 months, none were incontinent and one in ten suffered impotence.

The majority, 95 per cent, were free of cancer after 12 months.

Dr Hashim Ahmed, who led the study at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust andUniversity College London, said: “This changes the paradigm. By focusing just on the areas of cancer we reduce the collateral damage to surrounding tissue.

“Our results are very encouraging. We’re optimistic that men diagnosed with prostate cancer may soon be able to undergo a day case surgical procedure, which can be safely repeated once or twice, to treat their condition with very few side-effects. That could mean a significant improvement in their quality of life.

“This study provides the proof-of-concept we need to develop a much larger trial to look at whether focal therapy is as effective as the current standard treatment in protecting the health of the men treated for prostate cancer in the medium and long term.”

The research programme is led by Professor Mark Emberton, of UCL and UCLH. He said: “Focal therapy offers harm reduction – it is a strategy that attempts to redress the balance of harms and benefits by offering men who place high utility on genito-urinary function an alternative to standard care.

“In fact, the concept is not new – tissue preserving strategies have been used successfully in all other solid organ cancers such as breast cancer by offering women a lumpectomy rather than mastectomy.”

Professor Gillies McKenna, director of the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, said: “Clinical trials, like this one supported by the MRC, are a fantastic tool for telling us whether experimental new treatments are likely to be effective in the clinic.

“If these promising results can be confirmed in a randomised controlled trial, focal therapy could soon become a reasonable treatment choice for prostate cancer alongside other proven effective therapies.”

People can significantly reduce their chances of being diagnosed with cancer by taking an aspirin a day for as little as three years, according to new research.The cheap drug not only appears to stop cancers developing in the first place, but also prevents them from spreading to other parts of the body, the new work shows.

Those who start taking low dose (75mg) aspirin daily in their 60s appear to benefit just as much as those who start taking it earlier.

The study Effect of daily aspirin on risk of cancer metastasis published in The Lancet, add to the argument that low dose aspirin should be taken widely from middle-age, said the lead author, Professor Peter Rothwell, of Oxford University’s Stroke Prevention Research Unit.

His team found that taking low dose daily aspirin for between three and five years reduced the chance of being diagnosed with cancer at that time by 19 per cent. Five years or more after starting taking aspirin, the reduction rose to 30 per cent.

He said: “These data do push the argument in favour of taking daily low-dose aspirin, particularly if you have a family history of heart disease or cancer.

“We showed previously that daily aspirin substantially reduces the long-term risk of some cancers, particularly colorectal cancer and oesophageal cancer, but that these effects don’t appear until about eight to 10 years after starting treatment.

“The delay is because aspirin is preventing the very early development of cancers and there is a long delay between this early stage and the eventual clinical presentation with a cancer.

“What we have now shown is that aspirin also has short-term effects, which are manifest after only two to three years.”

The effect was just as marked in those who started taking it after they had turned 60.

The short-term effect appeared to be caused by aspirin slowing the progression of cancer. Another new study showed aspirin almost halved the chances of diagnosed cancer spreading to other organs, over 6.5 years.

Prof Rothwell said: “This is important because it is this process of spread of cancer, or ‘metastasis’, which most commonly kills people with cancer.”

After five years, the chance of having died from cancer if on aspirin was 37 per cent lower.

The findings also raised “the distinct possibility that aspirin will be effective as an additional treatment for cancer – to prevent distant spread of the disease”, he said.

Aspirin has long been hailed for its blood-thinning properties, leading some to argue that it should be prescribed to those who are at a higher risk of heart attack or stroke, even if they have never had one.

However, researchers have been increasingly worried that the benefits of reduced heart attacks and strokes are cancelled out by the raised risk of stomach bleeds, which are occasionally fatal.

But Prof Rothwell said the new research showed that aspirin had a far greater effect on reducing cancer than reducing heart attacks and strokes. Nine out of 10 deaths it prevented were “non-vascular”, according to one of the studies.

Critics of widespread aspirin use point out that it triggers stomach bleeding in some people, which can occasionally be fatal. Even advocates concede it should be used with caution in over 75s.

Prof Rothwell said their studies showed that while aspiring doubled the risk of bleeds in the first three years, after that the risk fell so there was no difference to not taking it. Aspirin also did not increase the risk of fatal bleeds, he said.

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins- head of the government’s medicines’ quango has said patients should sue their health trust if they are not getting the best recommended drugs.The killer quango- National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (NICE) was set up by labour to stop the NHS spending money on it’s drugs bill- so it’s unusual for him to speak out about NHS rationing.

Professor Rawlins, the chairman of NICE said the economic pressure on trusts meant that “completely illegal” decisions were being made to limit the use of expensive drugs.

He told the Financial Times: “I just wish a patient organisation would take a Trust to court for failing to comply.”

Nice has been criticised for ruling against the prescription of expensive new drugs on the grounds that they are not cost-effective.

But Sir Michael told the paper that most of Nice’s recommendations were in favour of prescription and that it was other bodies that blocked the drugs’ use.

Sir Michael criticised the local lists of approved medicines drawn up across the NHS which “second-guess” and sometimes ignore Nice recommendations.

While patient groups for particular diseases – often helped by pharmaceutical companies – have attacked Nice for advising against the use of some expensive new medicines, Sir Michael said they should be directing more criticism instead to the drug companies for charging high prices.

The government’s own innovation review recognised the problem by pledging a Nice “compliance regime” to reduce regional variation – the so-called “postcode lottery” – and to improve adherence to the agency’s guidelines.

It cautioned that local decisions should not act as a barrier to the medicines that Nice had approved.

Almost half of cancers are caused by an unhealthy lifestyle that could be avoided by quitting smoking, losing weight, exercising and drinking less alcohol, the most comprehensive study of its kind has found.Around 134,000 cancers each year are the result of a poor lifestyle, Cancer Research UK has found.

In the most wide reaching study yet conducted into the issue, it was found that 14 different lifestyle factors ranging from smoking, to lack of exercise, eating too much salt, not having babies, drinking too much and being overweight contributed to four in every ten cancers diagnosed in the UK.

The findings expose the myth that developing cancer is ‘bad luck’ or down to your genes, the researchers said.

Previous studies had suggested around 80,000 cancers a year could be prevented but they did not take into account occupational exposures to things like asbestos, infections that can cause cancer and sunburn as the latest research has.

In a complex set of research studies, scientists calculated how many cancers and of what type could be attributed to each of the 14 lifestyle factors.

The findings of the research The Fraction of Cancer Attributable to Lifestyle and Environmental Factors in the UK were published in the British Journal of Cancer.

Smoking was the biggest factor, causing nearly one in five of all cancers.

But Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said most people would not know that a quarter of all breast cancer cases could be prevented along with half of colorectal cancers.

He added: “Leading a healthy lifestyle doesn’t guarantee that someone will not get cancer but doing so will significantly stack the odds in your favour.”

Dr Kumar said tackling unhealthy lifestyle factors linked to cancer would also reduce the risk of a host of other killer diseases such as heart disease, respiratory problems, kidney disease and others.

The study found that alcohol was responsible for 6.4 per cent of breast cancers and almost one in ten liver cancers.

Three quarters of stomach cancers could be avoided, mostly by not smoking, eating too much salt and consuming more fruit and vegetables.

Red meat consumption led to 2.7 per cent of cancers, almost 8,500 cases. Obesity was linked to more than five per cent of cancers or almost 18000 cases, including a third of womb cancers.

Lack of breastfeeding was linked to 3.1 per cent of breast cancers and 17 per cent of ovarian cancers.

The study did not examine how many cancer deaths would be prevented with a healthier lifestyle.

Sara Hiom, director of information at Cancer Research UK, said: “We know, especially during the Christmas party season, that it is hard to watch what you eat and limit alcohol and we don’t want people to feel guilty about having a drink or indulging a bit more than usual. But it’s very important for people to understand that long term changes to their lifestyles can really reduce their cancer risk.”

The World Cancer Research Fund did a similar exercise in 2007 coming up with recommendations to individuals on how to reduce their cancer risk by eating less red meat, taking more exercise and staying slim.

Dr Rachel Thompson, Deputy Head of Science for World Cancer Research Fund, said: “This adds to the now overwhelmingly strong evidence that our cancer risk is affected by our lifestyles.

“We hope this new study helps to raise awareness of the fact that cancer is not simply a question of fate and that people can make changes today that can reduce their risk of developing cancer in the future.”

Cancer care on the NHS lags behind that in many other developed countries because Labour wasted billions of pounds on PFI schemes, bureaucracy and inflated salaries for managers.A report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that, despite record spending on health care, cancer survival rates in Britain are worse than in Slovenia and the Czech Republic.

Survival rates for breast cancer, prostate cancer and cervical cancer were below the average for the 34 developed countries in the study.

Mr Lansley lays the blame for the poor performance on the previous government’s failure to make sure that extra investment in the NHS reached the front line. He claims patient care was ignored in favour of increased salaries and botched computer systems.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Lansley says: “Unfortunately this report shows how much work there is to do to deal with Labour’s legacy of neglect and mismanagement of our NHS.

“They hugely increased spending on the Health Service, but wasted much of it on managers, failed IT projects and unsustainable PFI projects.

“They failed to focus on what really matters – patients – which is why we still have some of the worst cancer outcomes amongst comparable countries.”

Under Labour, spending on the NHS trebled, reaching almost £100 billion in 2009, but money for treating cancer still lags behind much of the rest of the world.

A report by the Policy Exchange think tank last year found that England spent around 5.6 per cent of its health care budget on cancer care, compared with 7.7 per cent in France, 9.6 per cent in Germany and 9.2 per cent in America.

In September it emerged that private finance initiatives, introduced by Labour to fund capital projects, have left 60 NHS hospitals on the “brink of financial collapse”. Meanwhile, the pay of NHS chief executives has risen, with typical earnings now more than £150,000.

The OECD figures reveal that the best breast cancer survival rates were in the US, where 89.3 per cent of women were alive five years after being diagnosed. The average across all OECD countries was 83.5 per cent, while in the UK it was 81.3 per cent.

Survival rates for cervical cancer were worse. Norway topped the table with 78.2 per cent still alive after five years, compared with 58 per cent of women in the UK. There were also more hospital admissions for asthma and other lung conditions than the average and infant mortality was higher.

The report also showed that consultations by doctors have fallen, and were below he OECD average in 2009.

Katherine Murphy, the chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “The NHS provides some excellent care but it does fall down on many counts. We know from patients phoning our helpline that the quality of care that they have experienced can be very poor and sometimes it is downright neglectful.

“Rather than trying to tackle the issue of poor care, the Department of Health is demanding that the NHS makes £20 billion of efficiency savings while spending a million pounds a day on a reform plan that doctors, nurses, patients and NHS managers all say risks irrevocably damaging the NHS.”

From:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Cancer-cash-wasted-on-NHS-salaries

Two Aspirn pills a day for two years reduced the incidence of bowel cancer by 63% in a group of 861 at-risk patients, a study reported in The Lancet said.Newcastle University’s Prof Sir John Burn, who led the study, said the evidence “seems overwhelmingly strong”.

Other experts said the findings added to a growing body of proof that aspirin could be used in the fight with cancer.

The study was conducted on 861 patients with Lynch syndrome, which affects one in every 1,000 people.

They struggle to detect and repair damaged DNA which means they are more likely to develop a range of cancers including those of the bowel, womb and stomach.

When looking at all patients in the trial, those in the group given 600 milligrams of aspirin every day developed 19 tumours compared to 34 tumours in the other “control” group, a reduction of 44%.

When the researchers looked at just those patients who took the medication for at least two years the reduction was 63%.

There was also an effect on other cancers linked to Lynch syndrome, which fell by half in the treatment group.

Prof Sir John Burn, from Newcastle University, said there were 30,000 adults in the UK with Lynch syndrome.

If all were given the treatment he said it would prevent 10,000 cancers over 30 years and he speculated that this could possibly prevent 1,000 deaths from the disease.

However, there would also be side effects.

“If we can prevent 10,000 cancers in return for 1,000 ulcers and 100 strokes, in most people’s minds that’s a good deal,” he said.

“People who’ve got a clear family history of, particularly, bowel cancer should seriously consider adding low dose aspirin to their routine and particularly those people who’ve got a genetic predisposition.”

Other studies over the past two decades have suggested the pain killer reduced cancer risk, but this was the first randomised control trial, specifically for aspirin in cancer, to prove it.

In 2010, a study suggested patients given aspirin had a 25% lower risk of death during that trial.

Prof Peter Rothwell, from Oxford University, who conducted that study said the latest research “certainly helps to build a consistent picture, all pointing in the same direction that there is a link with cancer”.

Cancer Research UK’s Prof Chris Paraskeva said: “This adds to the growing body of evidence showing the importance of aspirin, and aspirin-like drugs, in the fight against cancer.”

One of the questions asked by the research into aspirin was whether healthy people with no family risks should take the drug.

The lower the risk of heart attack or cancer, the lower the benefit of taking aspirin, yet there are still potentially deadly side effects.

Sir John said that it was a “finely balanced argument” and that he decided the risks were worth it for him.

“I think where we’re headed for is people that are in their 50s and 60s would look very seriously at adding a low dose aspirin to their daily routine because it’s giving protection against cancer, heart attack and stroke.

“But if they do that they’ve got to have their eyes wide open. They will increase their risk of ulcers and gastrointestinal bleeds and very rarely they will have a stroke caused by the aspirin.”

From: http://www.thelancet.com/search/aspirin+cancer

The first new skin cancer treatment since the 1970s has been rejected by the NHS’s rationing body, in a decision branded a “death sentence” for patients.Clinical trials had shown that half of those who were given the drug were still alive a year later, twice as many as those given an alternative treatment.

The drug, called ipilimumab, works by teaching the immune system how to tackle melanomas and was widely seen as an important advance on “old-fashioned” chemotherapy.

But in draft guidance NICE- the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure has recommended that NHS trusts do not prescribe the treatment, because it costs about £80,000 per patient and because it had doubts over the research data.

It means that unless the manufacturer cuts the price, the only way that the growing number of advanced melanoma sufferers can access the drug is by applying to the Government’s Cancer Drugs Fund.

The decision comes after a provocative academic report claimed that some expensive cancer drugs are “futile” as they cost a lot and cause toxic side-effects yet only give dying patients a few more weeks to live.

In a joint statement, the support group Factor 50 and charity SKCIN said: “The breakthrough that patients and clinicians throughout the UK have been waiting for has arrived in the form of this drug.”

“Standard treatments that have been available since the 1970s are ineffective and to deny this drug to patients, many of whom are young and with very young families, has undoubtedly handed them down a death sentence.”

“To have come so close to a breakthrough and to be told no at this stage is truly devastating.”

Dr Pippa Corrie, Consultant Medical Oncologist at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, added: “Licensing of this drug for use in the UK marked a step change in melanoma patient care, and whilst the Nice decision is predictable, it is disappointing.

“It is essential that we all work to avoid any negative impact on facilitating patient access to this drug. Our patients have waited too long already.”

Rates of skin cancer are rising faster than any other type of the disease in Britain and it affects teenagers and young adults more than any other group.

Almost 12,000 people now develop the most serious kind, malignant melanoma, every year and about 2,000 will die after it spreads across the body.

For the past 30 years the only treatment has been a type of chemotherapy called dacarbazine which is not seen as particularly effective and leaves patients tired and at greater risk of infection.

The new treatment, marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb as Yervoy, is taken in just four injections, one every three weeks and is said to have fewer side-effects.

In a trial on patients who had undergone prior therapy for skin cancer, 46 per cent who took the new drug were still alive after a year compared with 25 per cent who had not taken it.

In addition, 24 per cent were still alive at two years compared with 14 per cent of those who did not take the drug, and the median survival was 10.1 months compared with 6.4 months among those who did not take it.

But Nice, which assesses whether or not new treatments should be widely available on the NHS in England and Wales, has recommended against its use.

Sir Andrew Dillon, its chief executive, said: “We need to be sure that new treatments provide sufficient benefits to patients to justify the significant cost the NHS is being asked to pay.”

He said the evidence showed that ipilimumab was only effective for a “small percentage” of patients, it was not clear how long its effects last, and that it was linked to “a number of adverse reactions”.

“The Committee considered all these factors and concluded that, on the basis of the evidence provided so far, ipilimumab could not be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources.”

But he added that the decision is open to public consultation while the manufacturer can offer to cut the cost.

Amadou Diarra, European Vice President and General Manager at Bristol-Myers Squibb UK, said: “We are fully committed to demonstrating that Yervoy represents real value for money to the NHS, and we will be submitting further evidence the hope that Nice will reconsider this decision so that all patients with metastatic melanoma can access this potentially life-extending treatment.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Death-sentence-as-NHS-watchdog-rejects-skin-cancer-drug