News and articles

Patients put at risk by delays in cancer care (Delays abound nationwide in receiving radiotherapy for cancer treatment) 3/04/07

Anger at breast cancer test delays (genetic test delays of two years or more) 19/06/06

Landmark EU chemical law passed (BBC News)

Danger: Chemical hazards (The Guardian)

REACH will not protect health unless it deals with the danger of low exposure, say scientists (press release)

Concern over cancer group's link to drug firm (The Guardian)

Riddle of frightening breast cancer epidemic (London Lite)

Don't dismiss possible links between chemicals and cancer (letters) (The Independent)

Riddle of frightening breast cancer epidemic (London Lite)

Babies in womb exposed to 'gender-bending' chemicals (the Daily Mail)

Anti-miscarriage drug doubles breast cancer risk in daughters (The Guardian)

Pesticides as endocrine disruptors – Disrupting Life's Messages (The Latest Hormone Science Pt. 4, Rachel's Environment and Health News No. 753)

Forget-Me-Not Ball a big success for Breast Cancer UK and No More Breast Cancer campaign

No More Breast Cancer Campaign Newsletter (pdf)

Archive

Below are copies and links to letters that have been published on behalf of Breast Cancer UK

Involving patients in clinical research
Improves the quality of research

Traditionally, patients have been involved in research as "subjects," or even "objects," but definitely not as colleagues. In 1995 the BMJ argued that "patients should help to decide which research is conducted, help to plan the research and interpret the data, and hear the results before anybody else." How far have we come in the past four years in realising these hopes?

We need to recognise that patients (participants, users, consumers, what you will) have the experience and skills that complement those of researchers. They know what it feels like to suffer a particular disease and to undergo the treatments with their various side effects. They will have a good idea of which research questions are worth asking, and when a question should be framed differently. For instance, researchers at Mount Vernon Hospital hypothesised that moving follow up breast cancer clinics to primary care might relieve the . . .
BMJ, Sep 1999; 319: 724 - 725

Full text available here British Medical Journal

Informed consent is being neglected

EDITOR - It has been depressing to see the decline of medical ethics in recent issues of the BMJ. One issue reports on President Clinton's attempt to impose heavy fines for breaches of research ethics yet publishes a trial in which participants were not told they were randomised. In another issue an editorial derides the idea that clinical trials should have objectives that are relevant to patients. Yes, trials should be "simple, timely, and well designed to answer well posed questions." But there is no need for them to "second guess what patients prefer" asking patients would be better and more likely to produce more meaningful research questions. The idea that quality of life evaluations should be built into clinical trials is not new, and if this is done it will be easier for doctors and patients to make treatment decisions that make sense to . . .
BMJ, Nov 2000; 321: 1160

Full text available here British Medical Journal

Trial experience and recollection of consent

EDITOR - Elbourne et al in their article discuss a common, and entirely avoidable, problem. People asked to sign consent forms, for both research and treatment, often do not recollect the exact details later. This is perfectly understandable. The courteous and common sense thing to do is surely to give all trial participants, parents of children in trials, and ordinary patients not in trials, a copy of the consent form they have just signed. The form should be accompanied by an information sheet giving all relevant details (including randomisation if any).

This should not replace verbal explanation but supplement it. This strategy would avoid much confusion, unhappiness, and even perhaps litigation. It is amazing to us that such a simple procedure, which is routine in business transactions, is still not observed routinely in clinical practice in the United Kingdom.
BMJ, Apr 2001; 322: 866

Full text available here British Medical Journal

ATAC trial: reporting interim results is not helpful

EDITOR — We should like to raise some concerns about the ATAC (arimidex, tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial, which was reported on in the Lancet after only half the time stipulated in the protocol (2.5 years instead of 5). Ravdin has raised important points: "Early reporting rules can powerfully affect what information can be gleaned from a trial, particularly if they cause a trial to be reported when many of the patients have not completed therapy." In spite of this, the "results" of the trial were reported in the United Kingdom's national lay press.

However, is arimidex really the best bet? Of course we still don't know as some of the more serious adverse events may not emerge until the five year mark is reached. The problems in patients with endometrial cancer who were taking tamoxifen took many years to become obvious. Why publish results at . . .
BMJ, Jun 2003; 326: 1329

Full text available here Britsh Medical Journal