Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of Public Health which provides the Board with an overview of Cancer Outcomes in Leeds.  It outlines that improving cancer outcomes has required cross system collaboration. This report finds that outcomes are improving but there are marked inequalities.

(Report attached)

The Board considered the report of the Director of Public Health on a review of cancer outcomes in Leeds undertaken during the summer 2015, with a focus on the three Leeds CCGs compared to the England average where possible. The report reiterated that cancer remained a strategic priority for the city. A new Cancer Strategy Group had been established in Leeds in order to improve outcomes (Appendix 1 to the report contained a copy of the Group’s Terms of Reference) and the views of the Board on the governance of the Group were sought.

Professor Peter Selby, (Academic Oncologist, University of Leeds), Geoff Hall (Consultant in non-surgical oncology) and Fiona Day (Consultant in Public Health) attended the meeting.

Professor Selby introduced the report and highlighted the ageing population and lifestyle as contributing factors to incidences of cancer in Leeds, stating that half the population will experience the disease. Professor Selby set Britain’s survival rates (51%) in the context of Europe (55%) and suggested Britain should aim for a 70% recovery rate by 2035. A key factor was late diagnosis which impacted on treatment outcome and these outcomes varied city wide.

He concluded that the Strategy Group would seek to promote earlier diagnosis, concentrate on lifestyle, research and innovation and supplement and contribute to national strategies.

The Board considered the following:

·  recognition that Leeds had a diverse population - cancer remained a taboo subject in some communities

·  The link between socio-economic status and outcomes - successful treatment was dependent on access and culture

·  Education and information emphasising the positive outcomes achievable could encourage some people to present themselves to their GP

·  Recognition that prevention remained key - the Board could consider how best to invest in the prevention agenda and support partners to raise awareness/develop mechanisms to advise the public about the links between lifestyle and cancer. It was noted that, due to the Public Health funding cuts implemented by Central Government, a cancer prevention campaign proposed for 2015 had not taken place

·  How to encourage an uptake in cancer screening, noting the success of 'Gatekeeper' schemes such as the 'got a cough, get a check' initiative which had seen an uptake in screening and early diagnosis of lung cancer. It was noted that rolling out similar schemes for breast and colorectal cancers was being considered, however it was still true that some members of the public were reluctant to self-refer straight to screening

·  Noted that Guidance from the Department of Health on the use and safety of e-cigarettes was still awaited

HWB considered the factors contributing to late diagnosis, comparison figures with other European and the comments made regarding patients engagement with their GP and the long time between diagnosis to treatment. It was noted that data from both primary and acute care services was analysed in order to identify areas of improvement and review how services respond.

(Councillors N Buckley and N Harington left the meeting at this point)

The Board additionally discussed:

·  Funding for advertisement/media campaign remains an issue

·  Offer from the Third Sector to share information on the “Gatekeeper” initiative as widely as possible

·  Acknowledgement that difficult discussions on cancer treatment for the elderly would be needed in the future – at the point where cancer becomes life-ending, rather than treatable, noting that treatment is currently based on age rather than ability to withstand treatment

RESOLVED-

a)  To note the progress on cancer outcomes

b)  To ensure cancer outcomes and reducing cancer inequalities remain strategic priorities for the city

c)  To note the governance arrangements for the Cancer Strategy Group