By the end of July an official report from the Department of Health is due to be published. Its purpose has been to review all the published medical papers about PDT research. There are thousands from around the world.

We suppose we can forgive the Department for the 14 months it took to get the report started from the date it was announced. There are presumably waiting lists in the NHS to get things done. Actually, we think it’s a scandal. Ludicrous.

In that time around 8,500 pancreatic cancer patients would have died. Another 5,000 head and neck cancer patients would probably have also died.

We are expecting that the report will recommend that the ‘approved’ PDT treatment for head and neck cancer should be made available to all across all of the UK. Due to funding problems in the NHS, last year only 100 of the annual total of head and neck patients received PDT. There are 80 centres trained to offer this treatment, but only a handful offering it.

Colin Hopper at University College Hospital in London did 98% of them. Now you can see the scale of the problem.

Please have a look at the video clip from head and neck cancer specialist, Keith Webster, from Birmingham. He often can’t get funding for PDT even where it is suitable for a patient. He has to ‘cut’ instead in these cases, with patients perhaps losing their tongue and suffering other disfigurement with all the ‘life’ consequences.

The review is all well and good, but ignores some key points. If we don’t address the financial issues at the same time, then how can PDT be rolled out?

We had a conversation recently with a ‘head in the clouds’ hospital manager: “We can’t afford to do PDT”. He missed the point totally.

He can’t afford not to. Compared to an eight, 10 or even 14-hour surgical procedure that wrecks the life of the patient, he can offer a one-hour PDT instead with no surgical devastation.

“But we can’t fit any more people in the wards?” he replied. “But if a PDT patient spends two or three days recovering compared to up to 14 after surgery, you can,” was our reply.

Professor Mike Richards, Director of Cancer Services at the Department of Health, seems to be totally ignoring the issue of cost and cost-benefit to the patient and the hospital. He seems to be refusing to concede the positive impact that PDT can offer financially and emotionally. PDT patients can often be well enough to be back at work within two weeks.

They wouldn’t be after surgery that has removed part or all of the tongue, or involved removing the gullet, stomach or other vital body parts.

Prof Richards doesn’t seem to have fully engaged with the case for PDT. It is surely vital that he does.