Hormone tablet Abiraterone for prostate cancer treated with curative intent

Prostate cancer can be treated with curative intent if it is localised to pelvis.

But in patients with high risk cancers, additional treatments might be needed to improve the odds of controlling the cancer.

Abiraterone is one such add-on treatment that has been shown to improve long term outcomes in a large UK trial.

Unfortunately the drug, abiraterone, even though it is much cheaper now, is not widely available in the UK National Health System ( NHS).

Now an AI (artificial intelligence) test has been developed which selects better those patients who are likely to benefit from Abiraterone.

Hopefully the test will become available for routine use in the near future.

The study data was presented at the prestigious annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) at Chicago.

Dr Sundar is a member of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and has been a member for more than 25 years.

References

BBC news. Hugh Pym and Ian Atkinson. Men denied life-extending prostate cancer drug

UCL. AI test to determine best prostate cancer treatment could save lives and money. 30 May 2025.

Daily Telegraph. Give prostate cancer patients drug that halves risk of death, NHS told.

SUN Newspaper.

Disclaimer: Please note – This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information research only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options, which are relevant and specific to you. The views expressed in this blog are NOT, in any way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice. The blog is NOT previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed, in any way, by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog likely represents some of the author’s personal views held at the time of drafting the blog and MAY CHANGE overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light.

Immunotherapy makes advanced head and neck cancer patients live longer

Immunotherapy has revolutionised the care of many patients with kidney, bladder, skin and various other cancers.

Now a UK led study has shown that given the immunotherapy drug- pembrolizumab – before and after surgery– makes people live substantially longer.

Pembrolizumab is a very costly drug with limited affordability in developing countries.

In western countries, only people with private medical insurance or people having a publicly funded health systems such as NHS can afford it.

The fascinating immunotherapy data was presented at the prestigious annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) at Chicago.

Dr Sundar is a member of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for more than 25 years.

References

  1. BBC News. Breakthrough cancer drug doubles survival in trial. Philippa Roxby
    Heath Reporter. May 2025.
  2. American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025: Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab plus standard of care (SOC) in resectable
    locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA HNSCC): Exploratory
    efficacy analyses of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-689 study
    . ( Distant Metastasis-Free Survival (DMFS) data:
    Median DMFS was 51.8 months with pembrolizumab + SOC versus 35.7 months with SOC (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56–0.90).
    Estimated DMFS rate at 36 months was 59.1% versus 49.0%, respectively. )
  3. American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting. 2025. Addition of Perioperative Pembrolizumab to Standard of Care in Newly Diagnosed Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.
  4. Pembrolizumab With or Without Chemotherapy in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Updated Results of the Phase III KEYNOTE-048 Study.

Disclaimer: Please note – This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information research only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options, which are relevant and specific to you. The views expressed in this blog are NOT, in any way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice. The blog is NOT previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed, in any way, by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog likely represents some of the author’s personal views held at the time of drafting the blog and MAY CHANGE overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light.

Should NHS in U.K. introduce charges for appointments ?

NHS – National Health Service in UK – is a free universal health care system and has been publicly funded since its introduction in 1948. Since it is free at point of delivery, all sections of population are able to access it regardless of their ability to pay.

Unfortunately, due to underfunding and increasing demand, NHS is struggling to cope and there are long waiting times for most services.

One of the potential ways to control demand in NHS is introduction of a nominal access charge for appointments.

Nominal charges can affect people’s behaviour. For example, nominal charges for single plastic bags in supermarket led to dramatic reductions in use of single use plastic bags.

Similarly, there is a potential for charges for appointments to reduce demand in NHS. The charges might stop patients making GP appointments for simple pain killers, Skin creams, anti-allergy tablets and indigestion medicines as these medicines are available to buy over the counter from pharmacies and supermarkets.

Charges might also reduce unnecessary attendances at Emergency departments.

Would they really work in practice?

No one knows for sure; a trial in an area of country might be the only way to find out whether it works in UK.

What about other countries experience regarding charges?

Germany introduced a quarterly charge (Praxisgebuehr) but scrapped it. There is some evidence that people from lower socioeconomic status were more affected by charges. There has also been some evidence that since removing the charges, there has been incoordination of care and possibly higher healthcare costs.

There is some evidence from other countries that user fees may have some impact on Demand.

There are some drawbacks to access charges and the vulnerable sections of the population would be at high risk of being harmed.

Read my letter in BMJ and do contribute your views through rapid response section.

Article: Supermarket plastic bags and NHS demand management
Free to access link: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.p630?ijkey=HPXCInDzw6eWEXz&keytype=ref

Disclaimer: Please note – This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog are NOT, in any way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice. The blog is NOT previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed, in any way, by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog likely represents some of the author’s personal views held at the time of drafting the blog and MAY CHANGE overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light

Should NHS bribe people to adopt a healthy life style?

A recent study conducted in U.K. later looked at the problem of smoking in pregnant women.

The study gave money to pregnant women if women stopped smoking.

The study found that giving money up to 400 pounds made some women stop smoking but sadly, the women stopped smoking only for a short period. After six months, there was NO significant difference between women given money and women given only usual advice about smoking.

The first issue with this study is the principle of “inducing / bribing” people with money to give up unhealthy habits. Shouldn’t the healthcare staff educate women rather than giving money for bad behaviour?

The second issue is no one knows whether the money was used wisely. Pregnant women who smoke are likely to have other vices such as unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, alcohol misuse, use of recreational drugs etc. Unhealthy behaviours cluster.

Giving money may have encouraged the women to stop smoking temporarily but the money could have used by women to replace smoking with other unhealthy behaviours. Unfortunately, the study doesn’t seem to looked at this problem.

In the study, two thirds of adverse events occurred in women given money vouchers. The authors have naively dismissed them as unrelated. The increase in adverse events suggests that women, who were given money, may have used the money unwisely. Perversely this well intentioned attempt to encourage good behaviour seem to have caused harm !

First, do no harm should be motto of healthcare staff .

Finally, most women who smoke during pregnancy are likely to be from lower socioeconomic group. Poverty is the underlying reason for most of their problems in life including unhealthy habits.

The Healthcare staff in UK are dealing with multiple crisis at present. It is beyond the ability of NHS staff to deal with poverty. The government through social services and public-health team should deal with poverty.

Read my reply at BMJ rapid response and contribute your thoughts through BMJ rapid response

References

Sundar S. Clustering of unhealthy behaviours and medicalisation of unhealthy lifestyles.

Effect of financial voucher incentives provided with UK stop smoking services on the cessation of smoking in pregnant women (CPIT III): pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2022; 379 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071522 (Published 19 October 2022)

Jefferies D. The steady crisis across the NHS. BMJ 2022;377:o1566. doi:10.1136/bmj.o1566

Sokol D K. “First do no harm” revisited BMJ 2013; 347 :f6426

Disclaimer: Please note – This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog are NOT, in any way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice. The blog is NOT previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed, in any way, by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog likely represents some of the author’s personal views held at the time of drafting the blog and MAY CHANGE overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light.

A third Vaccine approved for protection against COVID-19 Coronavirus infection

Pfizer Vaccine and Astra Zeneca/Oxford Vaccine were approved last month by the UK regulatory authorities.

Now the regulatory authorities have approved a third vaccine. The third vaccine from Moderna along with two other vaccines should help to bring the pandemic to an end.

The Moderna vaccine is a new technology like the Pfizer Vaccine. (based on mRNA technology).

Like the two vaccines, the short term data for Moderna vaccine is very encouraging.

Over long term, one hopes that the protective effect of all the three vaccines is long lasting and that they remain effective against any new variants of coronavirus that might emerge in the coming months.

Overall, there is certainly ‘light at end of the tunnel’ and the world can emerge out of this horrific pandemic in a short period.

BBC. Moderna becomes third Covid vaccine approved in the UK
By Michelle Roberts
Health editor, BBC News online

BBC.Covid-19: Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine judged safe for use in UK
By Michelle Roberts
Health editor, BBC News online
Published2 December 2020

BBC. Covid-19: Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine approved for use in UK
By James Gallagher and Nick Triggle
BBC News
Published30 December 2020

MHRA. Oxford University/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine approved.

MHRA. Moderna vaccine becomes third COVID-19 vaccine approved by UK regulator.

MHRA. UK medicines regulator gives approval for first UK COVID-19 vaccine.

Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.

The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not necessarily endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with and the authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.

Why do some people falsely believe COVID-19 is a hoax ?

It is quite difficult to give a single reason why some people believe COVID-19 is a hoax.

Since the coronavirus pandemic started, there has been so much anxiety, stress and severe disruption to the everyday life.

Most people like certainty with everyday life. Most people do not wake up and think that there is very very tiny chance I might die today (even though that’s true).

Thinking about bad things all the time can make you feel very stressed and exhausted . In a way, it is healthy NOT to focus on all the bad things that can happen everyday.

The daily bad news about Coronavirus pandemic can be very upsetting to some people, particularly if you cannot mentally switch off.

So some people mentally cope by believing the COVID-19 is fake news. Believing COVID-19 is a hoax helps some people to get on with their lives without being very fearful and worried everyday. It is a coping mechanism.

Unfortunately social media doesn’t help and lot of fake news sites tell people that it is no worse than a simple flu. (which is not true, COVID-19 is certainly much worse than simple flu).

It is true that only about 1% of people with COVID-19 die due to the disease. But if ten million people get infected in a country that means an extra 100,000 deaths. If the whole population of UK were to get the infection, theoretically it could mean at least an extra 500,000 deaths.

COVID-19 is particularly bad for old people . The risk of death is <1 per 10 000 for someone aged less than 30 but the risk is much higher for older age groups. For example, in men aged 80 or older, the risk of dying from COVID-19 is just over 1 in 10.

Be safe. Be aware.

Do trust the NHS website rather than a “friend of a friend” on social media.

References:

Guardian Newspaper. Doctors are our frontline against Covid. Now they lead the fight against its deniers, too
Gaby Hinsliff. Mon 4 Jan 2021 14.36 GMT

Newspaper headlines: ‘Lockdown 3′ and ‘race to vaccinate vulnerable’
By BBC News. 5 Jan 2021.

“Normal” risk and dangers of covid-19
Awareness of normal risk is not normal
BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4121 (Published 29 October 2020)
Cite this as: BMJ 2020;371:m4121 https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4121.full.pdf

Spiegelhalter D. Use of “normal” risk to improve understanding of dangers of covid-19. BMJ2020;370:m3259. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3259. pmid:32907857

Comparative evaluation of clinical manifestations and risk of death in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and seasonal influenza: cohort study. BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4677 (Published 15 December 2020)
Cite this as: BMJ 2020;371:m4677

Infection fatality risk for SARS-CoV-2 in community dwelling population of Spain: nationwide seroepidemiological study
BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4509 (Published 27 November 2020)
Cite this as: BMJ 2020;371:m4509. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4509

Office for National statistics. Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: mid-2019.

NHS Coronavirus (COVID-19). Get the latest NHS information and advice about coronavirus (COVID-19).

Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.

The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not necessarily endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with and the authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.