Eye cancer patient says life-saving treatment she needs isn’t on NHS: ‘I am devastated’

A charity supporting eye cancer patients is calling for the matter to be addressed

Kate Ng
Sunday 26 February 2023 16:15 GMT
Comments
(Getty Images)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A woman with a rare form of cancer has shared her fears that she has a lower chance of survival because she can’t afford treatment that isn’t funded by the NHS.

Megan McClay, 29, was diagnosed with ocular melanoma, also known as uveal melanoma, in 2020. It is a type of cancer that begins in the cells of the uvea or uveal tract of the eye.

According to national charity OcuMel UK, she was informed that some tumours had spread to her liver and requires a treatment called chemosaturation therapy, or percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP).

The charity, which supports uveal cancer patients, said PHP is effective in nearly 90 per cent of patients – but that despite the success, the NHS does not fund the treatment.

McClay, from Wymondham, Norfolk, is therefore unable to get the treatment from the NHS, which has left her “devastated”.

She said that her treatment options are “limited” as she “simply cannot afford chemosaturation”.

“This is deeply troubling for myself, my family and for the many others in a similar situation,” she said. “I am devastated that I will not be able to experience the hope that this treatment brings.

“The confidence and assurance of having access to treatment options is fundamental for prolonging life and maintaining quality of life.”

McClay added that she has a “strong desire to survive for as long as possible” but fears that her financial limitations may “prevent this from happening”.

In 2021, PHP was highlighted as a treatment option by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). However, the guidance recommends that, for patients with metastases in the liver from ocular melanoma, the treatment “should only be used with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit or research”.

According to OcuMel UK, the procedure “isolates” the liver from the rest of the body and “bathes” it in chemotherapy by using two small balloons to divert blood past the liver for an hour while “delivering drugs directly into the organ”.

This allows doctors to administer larger doses of the drug than standard chemotherapy would deliver. The charity added it “does not enter the bloodstream and cause unnecessary damage to healthy parts of the body”.

Neil Pearce, chairman of OcuMel UK, said: “It really is devastating that patients with ocular melanoma that has spread to the liver are being denied access to a treatment proven to boost survival, with no NHS commissioned service and every individual funding request put to NHS England denied.”

He added that some patients are fundraising for themselves and paying to have the treatment in a private healthcare setting, but “most simply cannot afford to do so”.

The charity is calling on “decision makers to address these issues as a matter of priority to save lives”.

A spokesperson for NHS England said: “While Nice incorporated chemosaturation therapy into the available treatment options, it specifically advised using it with caution.

“NHS England also identified there was insufficient evidence to make it routinely available and will look to review the evidence again later this year.”

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in