Tiny Esperion Takes On Industry Giants In Battle To Find The Next Lipitor

Esperion (ESPR) is a small company developing a cholesterol drug with the aim to succeed Lipitor or at least to complement it. It is facing up to pharma giants like Sanofi, Amgen and Pfizer. But the company has one asset that nobody else does: its executive chairman is the one and only Roger Newton, an icon of the cholesterol business.

In September Esperion announced positive top-line results from a Phase 2a study of its drug, ETC-1002 when added to statin therapy in patients with elevated levels of low density LDL-C or "bad cholesterol".

Later in 2013 Esperion is planning a larger Phase 2b trial targeting the statins intolerant population with results expected in 2014.

Roger Newton

The legendary Newton led the research team at Warner-Lambert in the mid-1990s that championed Lipitor, the blockbuster cholesterol-fighter. In 2000 Pfizer (PFE) bought Warner-Lambert for $115 billion to get hold of the drug.

By that time Newton had already left and with several members of the Lipitor team co-founded Esperion Therapeutics, a tiny biotech in Ann Arbor, Mich., to develop another set of promising drugs: proteins that mimicked or improved upon high-density lipoprotein (HDL) the good cholesterol that is thought to prevent heart attacks by pulling plaque out of the arteries and reducing inflammation.

In November 2003, a small trial of one Esperion has brought amazing results. The medicine, a big, sloppy protein that had to be infused with an intravenous line, was a supercharged version of the HDL protein. It had been discovered in people in a small Italian village who had an astoundingly low risk of heart disease. In that small trial, it appeared to clear out artery plaque.

The trial was so hugely successful that Pfizer bought Esperion in the same year for $1.3 billion in cash. The move was not entirely foolish on the part of Pfizer. Pfizer was protecting Lipitor then at the height of its success and also defending its star candidate in development, the HDL pill torcetrapib.

As a major shareholder in Esperion, Newton profited from the deal. And he stayed at Esperion, which was merged into Pfizer's research establishment. But the Esperion invented drugs did not make it to clinical trials due to manufacturing and other difficulties. And the HDL pill Pfizer was defending, torcetrapib, turned out to increase mortality in a big clinical trial and had been abandoned. With it went Pfizer's interest in cholesterol drugs.

In 2008 Esperion was spun out of Pfizer with the help of $22.75 million from venture firms Aisling Capital, Alta Partners and Domain Associates, and Arboretum Ventures. Separately Pfizer licensed rights to the famed compound, ApoA-1 Milano to the Medicines Company (MDCO) which is still working on it.

Newton used the initial $22.75 million to buy back the patent for the molecule, ETC-1002, also developed by the first Esperion and which, as he remarked, excited him more than anything he had ever seen before. He brought a number of former Pfizer and Esperion employees with him and restarted Esperion.

Selling a company for a billion bucks and buying it back for $23 million: that sums up in a nutshell the financial genius that is Roger Newton.

ETC-1002

In September Esperion Phase 2a study demonstrated that the oral, once-daily ETC-1002 achieved incremental LDL-C lowering of 22 percent at eight weeks, compared with 0 percent in the placebo group, when added to 10 mg of atorvastatin.

Newton commented:

"Since a 10 mg dose of atorvastatin provides 30 to 35 percent LDL-C lowering, the addition of ETC-1002 could potentially provide LDL-C lowering of greater than 55 percent with an oral dosing regimen. While statin therapy remains the standard of care for high cholesterol, it is estimated that 11 million Americans are still unable to reach their LDL-C treatment goals despite taking a statin."

ETC-1002 is an add-on to statin therapy in patients who have not achieved their LDL cholesterol goal on a statin alone. Analyst estimate this market to be $6 billion to $10 billion and perhaps four to five times larger than the statin intolerant market opportunity alone.

In clinical practice 10 milligrams of atorvastatin typically lowers LDL cholesterol in patients by 30 to 35 percent. An additional 22 percent coming from ETC-1002 makes this incremental reduction in LDL cholesterol over 50 percent.

The coming 2b study will enroll 322 patients with hypercholesterolemia, with and without a history of statin-intolerance.

As a rule, with statins, as you increase the dose, the efficacy is reduced and the side effects multiply. For example, when you go from 10 mg to 20 mg with a statin, you get a 6 percent reduction in efficacy and a further 6 percent with every doubling of the dose.

So in order to gain a 22 percent reduction you would have to go from of 10 milligrams of Lipitor up to an 80 milligrams dose. The incidents of side effects escalate along with the higher doses.

So Esperion's strategy is a statin sparing dosing regimen for diabetic patients with hypercholesterolemia, or for statin-intolerant patients who can tolerate a very modest dosing of statin. ETC-1002 gives an opportunity to help these patients get to their LDL goal in a much more tolerable way.

The drug also has additional benefits in other cardiometabolic risk factors such as hscRP, the blood pressure glucose in vein, which could benefit millions of patients who are intolerant to statins as well as those that are already taking one.

Market

The market consists of statin intolerant and so-called residual risk patients.

Statin intolerance is estimated to be as high as 20 percent in clinical practice. The FDA recently issued an alert regarding statins and increased risk of raised blood sugar levels and the development of type 2 diabetes and cognitive (brain-related) impairment, such as memory loss, forgetfulness and confusion.

The initial target of ETC-1002 are patients with elevated levels of LDL-C, or hypercholesterolemia, who are statin intolerant.

Various studies estimate that more than 50 percent of patients stop taking statins within one year of initiating treatment. The result of the poor statin adherence is worse cardiovascular outcomes. Although several reasons are cited for poor adherence, muscle pain or weakness is the most common side effect experienced by statin users and the most common cause for discontinuing therapy.

In addition to the 2 million U.S. adults who have discontinued statin therapy because of muscle pain or weakness, a significant proportion of patients still remain on statin therapy despite these side effects. A study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine in August 2008 and cited above, estimated that up to 20 percent of statin-treated patients in clinical practice complained of muscle pain.

The residual risk market consist of patients who are unable to reach their recommended LDL-C goals despite using statins. The severity of hypercholesterolemia in these patients, their level of residual cardiovascular disease risk and their therapeutic options all vary widely. Using data from the CDC study, "Vital Signs: Prevalence, Treatment, and Control of High Levels of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol" Esperion estimates that 70 percent of the 11 million residual risk patients in the U.S., or 7.7 million people, are within 30 percent of their LDL-C goal. ETC-1002, if approved, could be a preferred therapeutic alternative for patients with residual risk, physicians and payors.

Competition

Several large companies have PCSK9 inhibitors in development that would compete with ETC-1002 including SAR236553/REGN727, a therapy in Phase 3 development being developed by Sanofi (SNY) and Regeneron (REGN), AMG-145, developed by Amgen (AMGN); and CETP inhibitors, such as MK-0859, a therapy that has completed a Phase 2b is being developed by Merck (MRK), and LY2484595, a therapy that is being developed by Eli Lilly (LLY).

The most recent new cholesterol drugs, Juxtapid from Aegerion Pharmaceuticals (AEGR) and Kynamro from Isis Pharmaceuticals (ISIS), have focused on patients with a severe genetic disease that causes their cholesterol to be very high. Newton and his team are going for a riskier strategy that would yield far more patients: they hope to do clinical trials for patients who can't take statins because of their muscle side effects. Amgen and Sanofi are pursuing similar strategies for their PCSK9 shots.

In order to really capitalize on the drug in a broad market, Esperion probably will need a large pharmaceutical company to partner with.

Investors' summary

Esperion reported a net loss of $6.9 million for the second quarter of 2013 and $11.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2013, compared with a net loss of $3.2 million and $5.6 million for the comparable periods in 2012.

At June 30, 2013, cash and cash equivalents totaled $16.6 million compared with $6.5 million at December 31, 2012. The increase was primarily driven by net cash proceeds of $17.0 million from a preferred stock financing in April. Cash and cash equivalents at June 30, 2013, did not include the net proceeds of $74.9 million resulting from the completion of the IPO and the exercise of the underwriters' over-allotment option in July 2013, which is net of underwriting discounts and commissions.

The IPO has got a warm reception and the offering size was increased from 4.5 million to 5 million shares at $14 per share, hitting the midpoint of its proposed range of $13 to $15 per share.

Esperion expects to have cash of around $75 million at the end of December. The company believes that existing cash resources will fund it until at least the end of 2015. Full-year 2013 net cash used in operating activities is expected to be approximately $25 million.

Esperion has completed seven clinical studies of ETC-1002 to date, including four Phase 2a studies, and expects to start a robust Phase 2b clinical program in the fourth quarter of 2013.

The stock price in the past 52 weeks ranged from $13.55 - $20.10 and the market cap is $236.50 million.

When it comes to new drugs development these days, atherosclerosis is pushed into the background by cancer and neurological disorders.

After a series of high profile failures at Pfizer, Merck and AstraZeneca and the rise of cheap generic versions of statins, drug companies have fled the field. Amgen, Sanofi and others are developing PCSK9 inhibitors, in part because the genetic research behind it is too compelling to pass it by.

While cardiovascular mortality rates have declined in recent years, the disease remains the #1 cause of death in the U.S. Statin use helped to improve the statistics, but suboptimal lipid management remains a problem.

85 percent of patients with diabetes in the U.S. cannot control glucose, blood pressure & lipids. Statin intolerance is estimated to be as high as 20 percent in clinical practice. For these problems and others new therapies are needed.

It appears that the only one new cholesterol-lowering pill in mid-stage development is Esperion's ETC-1002.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)

View the original article here

GPs continue to do battle with government over telehealth

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt supports telehealth which could be a catalyst for service integration and patient empowerment. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

The greatest benefits from telehealth are yet to come – as a catalyst for service integration and patient empowerment. But these will only be realised if doctors stop looking for opportunities to reject it.

The development of telehealth has been dogged by politicisation of the issue and the way the conclusions of the "whole system demonstrator" programme were interpreted and debated.

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt is firmly committed to telehealth. The day after the publication last November of the first NHS Mandate, identifying its priorities for the coming years, he confirmed that seven pathfinders run by the NHS and councils would be signing contracts to provide access to telehealth for 100,000 people this year.

In the poisonous relationship between the Department of Health and GPs, ministerial support for a big expansion in the technology is interpreted by some doctors as yet another attempt to impose politically motivated change on the way GPs work.

The whole system demonstrator programme showed that telehealth secured significant reductions in mortality and emergency admissions. However, London School of Economics researchers concluded that "telehealth does not seem to be a cost-effective addition to standard support and treatment", claiming that quality adjusted life years provided by the programme cost £92,000, compared with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ceiling for cost effectiveness of £30,000.

Pitched as the biggest telehealth research project to date, and with a name that gave the misleading impression that it was a definitive answer, the conclusions provided sceptics and cynics with ample ammunition. In particular, some GPs resistant to signing up to telehealth programmes have been citing the demonstrator as evidence that it is a wasteful diversion of scarce resources.

But the weight that has been given to the LSE researchers' analysis is a mistake. It is all but a certainty that the cost for each person will fall as use of the technology becomes far more widespread, and that its effectiveness will increase. Improvements in performance will be driven by targeting its use to the patients who will benefit most and, crucially, by more sophisticated use of the information which it provides.

Telehealth technology is not particularly clever – the really clever part is the human system within which the technology is used. Community nurses, paramedics, GPs, consultants and above all the patients themselves are the essential tools of telehealth. As they become more experienced in analysing and acting upon the information which the technology provides, and different services around the telehealth patient become more integrated, patient benefits and cost effectiveness will rise.

Eventually, other costs will start to fall as telehealth becomes a catalyst for wider system change. At present it is a bolt-on to a care system poorly integrated and not adapted for telehealth. It will require clinicians to work together in new ways, particularly in more effective joint working between community and hospital staff. It offers the prospect of ending the drudgery for both patients and clinicians of thousands of pointless outpatient check-ups which daily clog up hospitals. Users should require fewer GP appointments.

But the biggest benefit will come from providing patients with long term conditions with the encouragement and information to manage them more effectively. Patient empowerment must be central to any plan to exploit this technology.

Talk of "expert patients" and "patient empowerment" far outstrips improvements in the involvement of patients in managing their own care. But telehealth is an opportunity to improve people's understanding of their own health, give them a greater voice in decisions – such as deciding the right response to a particular reading – and perhaps most importantly encourage them to be less dependent on meeting clinical staff.

Telehealth has much to offer a financially constrained and struggling health system which is looking for better ways to meet the needs of older patients and others with long term conditions.

Concern among GPs that the primary care system is being overwhelmed is not matched by a willingness to explore new models of working. Telehealth deserves a better hearing from many doctors than it has had so far.

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.

View the original article here

GPs continue to do battle with government over telehealth

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt supports telehealth which could be a catalyst for service integration and patient empowerment. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

The greatest benefits from telehealth are yet to come – as a catalyst for service integration and patient empowerment. But these will only be realised if doctors stop looking for opportunities to reject it.

The development of telehealth has been dogged by politicisation of the issue and the way the conclusions of the "whole system demonstrator" programme were interpreted and debated.

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt is firmly committed to telehealth. The day after the publication last November of the first NHS Mandate, identifying its priorities for the coming years, he confirmed that seven pathfinders run by the NHS and councils would be signing contracts to provide access to telehealth for 100,000 people this year.

In the poisonous relationship between the Department of Health and GPs, ministerial support for a big expansion in the technology is interpreted by some doctors as yet another attempt to impose politically motivated change on the way GPs work.

The whole system demonstrator programme showed that telehealth secured significant reductions in mortality and emergency admissions. However, London School of Economics researchers concluded that "telehealth does not seem to be a cost-effective addition to standard support and treatment", claiming that quality adjusted life years provided by the programme cost £92,000, compared with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ceiling for cost effectiveness of £30,000.

Pitched as the biggest telehealth research project to date, and with a name that gave the misleading impression that it was a definitive answer, the conclusions provided sceptics and cynics with ample ammunition. In particular, some GPs resistant to signing up to telehealth programmes have been citing the demonstrator as evidence that it is a wasteful diversion of scarce resources.

But the weight that has been given to the LSE researchers' analysis is a mistake. It is all but a certainty that the cost for each person will fall as use of the technology becomes far more widespread, and that its effectiveness will increase. Improvements in performance will be driven by targeting its use to the patients who will benefit most and, crucially, by more sophisticated use of the information which it provides.

Telehealth technology is not particularly clever – the really clever part is the human system within which the technology is used. Community nurses, paramedics, GPs, consultants and above all the patients themselves are the essential tools of telehealth. As they become more experienced in analysing and acting upon the information which the technology provides, and different services around the telehealth patient become more integrated, patient benefits and cost effectiveness will rise.

Eventually, other costs will start to fall as telehealth becomes a catalyst for wider system change. At present it is a bolt-on to a care system poorly integrated and not adapted for telehealth. It will require clinicians to work together in new ways, particularly in more effective joint working between community and hospital staff. It offers the prospect of ending the drudgery for both patients and clinicians of thousands of pointless outpatient check-ups which daily clog up hospitals. Users should require fewer GP appointments.

But the biggest benefit will come from providing patients with long term conditions with the encouragement and information to manage them more effectively. Patient empowerment must be central to any plan to exploit this technology.

Talk of "expert patients" and "patient empowerment" far outstrips improvements in the involvement of patients in managing their own care. But telehealth is an opportunity to improve people's understanding of their own health, give them a greater voice in decisions – such as deciding the right response to a particular reading – and perhaps most importantly encourage them to be less dependent on meeting clinical staff.

Telehealth has much to offer a financially constrained and struggling health system which is looking for better ways to meet the needs of older patients and others with long term conditions.

Concern among GPs that the primary care system is being overwhelmed is not matched by a willingness to explore new models of working. Telehealth deserves a better hearing from many doctors than it has had so far.

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.

View the original article here

Smart Map launch offers new approach in the battle against Britain's biggest cancer killer, UK

Main Category: Lung Cancer
Also Included In: IT / Internet / E-mail
Article Date: 31 Jul 2013 - 1:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Smart Map launch offers new approach in the battle against Britain's biggest cancer killer, UK

Lung cancer patients can now check they are getting the best care available after the launch of a new interactive online map.

Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation (RCLCF) announced the launch today of its Lung Cancer Smart Map, which shows patients how treatment in their area compares against government targets.

Dr Jesme Fox, Medical Director at the RCLCF said: "There may be many reasons why some areas aren't meeting national standards but the point of this map is to give patients the power to ask why.

"We hope that the Smart Map will encourage patients to work with their doctors in making sure they get the best care available."

Dr Michael Peake, Clinical Lead for the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA), said: "The Lung Cancer Smart Map is a great way to make our data on the quality and outcomes of lung cancer services across the UK easily available and easily understandable to the general public. Patients and their families have a right to know what information is 'out there' on the hospitals in which they might be treated and this map is an excellent example of how that can be achieved."

Public health minister Anna Soubry said: "This interactive cancer map is a great source of information which empowers lung cancer patients to make better informed choices about the care and treatment they receive.

"I'd like to commend the Foundation's commitment to diagnosing lung cancer earlier and identifying the best treatments available in order to save as many lives as possible."

Please click on the following link to view the map

The Smart Map includes the latest regional data from a range of measures recorded in the NLCA. It compares local real-world hospital data to the nationally recommended standards of care.[1] Hospitals have made consistent progress in treating lung cancer since the NLCA audit began in 2004 but there is still significant room for improvement and it's hoped that sharing this information will accelerate future positive change.

It is hoped that the Smart Map can also encourage improvements in timely referral from primary care. It includes local data from the National Cancer Intelligence Network's (NCIN) "Routes to Diagnosis" study which showed that lung cancer patients who are diagnosed via a managed referral rather than an emergency admission have improved outcomes.[2]

The development of the map was supported by Roche Products Ltd.

The National Lung Cancer Audit is the most comprehensive review of lung cancer services that has been undertaken in the UK. The latest published audit used data collected on 38,528 patients first seen in 2011 in Great Britain, representing approximately 93% of the expected number of new lung cancer cases. This is thought to represent almost all cases of lung cancer presenting to hospital.[1]

The audit, which began eight years ago, has helped drive improvements in care by providing hospital trusts with vital information about their performance and how they compare to others. The audit is managed by The NHS Information Centre in partnership with the Royal College of Physicians and is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership.

The NCIN Routes to Diagnosis study examined the sequence of events leading to every cancer diagnosis made in England between 2006 and 2008.[3] The total number of lung cancer cases evaluated in this study over the three year period equates to 96,735. In the RCLCF Smart Map, lung cancer specific data from the study is grouped to show the percentage of diagnoses made via 'managed', 'emergency presentation' and 'other' routes. The 'managed' route encompasses patients who presented through the two week wait, GP referral, plus other outpatient and inpatient elective routes.

Lung cancer is Britain's biggest cancer killer with approximately 41,500 new cases diagnosed each year.[4] Of these patients, about 30% will survive a year and only about 8% will survive five years.[5],[6] Lung cancer kills almost 4,000 more women every year than breast cancer and accounts for more male cancer deaths than prostate, pancreatic and stomach cancer combined.[7]

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our lung cancer section for the latest news on this subject.

[1] National Lung Cancer Audit Report 2012

[2] National Cancer Intelligence Network. Routes to Diagnosis – NCIN Data Briefing (Last accessed May 2013)

[3] National Cancer Intelligence Network. Routes to Diagnosis, 2006-2008 (Last accessed May 2013)

[4] Cancer Research UK. Lung Cancer Incidence Statistics(Last accessed May 2013)

[5] Office of National Statistics. Cancer Survival in England - Patients Diagnosed 2005-2009 and Followed up to 2010 (Last accessed May 2013)

[6] Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. Lung Cancer Facts and Figures (Last accessed May 2013)

[7] Cancer Research UK. Cancer mortality for common cancers (Last accessed May 2013)

Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. "Smart Map launch offers new approach in the battle against Britain's biggest cancer killer, UK." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 31 Jul. 2013. Web.
31 Jul. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Smart Map launch offers new approach in the battle against Britain's biggest cancer killer, UK'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

View the original article here

Smart Map launch offers new approach in the battle against Britain's biggest cancer killer, UK

Main Category: Lung Cancer
Also Included In: IT / Internet / E-mail
Article Date: 31 Jul 2013 - 1:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Smart Map launch offers new approach in the battle against Britain's biggest cancer killer, UK

Lung cancer patients can now check they are getting the best care available after the launch of a new interactive online map.

Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation (RCLCF) announced the launch today of its Lung Cancer Smart Map, which shows patients how treatment in their area compares against government targets.

Dr Jesme Fox, Medical Director at the RCLCF said: "There may be many reasons why some areas aren't meeting national standards but the point of this map is to give patients the power to ask why.

"We hope that the Smart Map will encourage patients to work with their doctors in making sure they get the best care available."

Dr Michael Peake, Clinical Lead for the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA), said: "The Lung Cancer Smart Map is a great way to make our data on the quality and outcomes of lung cancer services across the UK easily available and easily understandable to the general public. Patients and their families have a right to know what information is 'out there' on the hospitals in which they might be treated and this map is an excellent example of how that can be achieved."

Public health minister Anna Soubry said: "This interactive cancer map is a great source of information which empowers lung cancer patients to make better informed choices about the care and treatment they receive.

"I'd like to commend the Foundation's commitment to diagnosing lung cancer earlier and identifying the best treatments available in order to save as many lives as possible."

Please click on the following link to view the map

The Smart Map includes the latest regional data from a range of measures recorded in the NLCA. It compares local real-world hospital data to the nationally recommended standards of care.[1] Hospitals have made consistent progress in treating lung cancer since the NLCA audit began in 2004 but there is still significant room for improvement and it's hoped that sharing this information will accelerate future positive change.

It is hoped that the Smart Map can also encourage improvements in timely referral from primary care. It includes local data from the National Cancer Intelligence Network's (NCIN) "Routes to Diagnosis" study which showed that lung cancer patients who are diagnosed via a managed referral rather than an emergency admission have improved outcomes.[2]

The development of the map was supported by Roche Products Ltd.

The National Lung Cancer Audit is the most comprehensive review of lung cancer services that has been undertaken in the UK. The latest published audit used data collected on 38,528 patients first seen in 2011 in Great Britain, representing approximately 93% of the expected number of new lung cancer cases. This is thought to represent almost all cases of lung cancer presenting to hospital.[1]

The audit, which began eight years ago, has helped drive improvements in care by providing hospital trusts with vital information about their performance and how they compare to others. The audit is managed by The NHS Information Centre in partnership with the Royal College of Physicians and is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership.

The NCIN Routes to Diagnosis study examined the sequence of events leading to every cancer diagnosis made in England between 2006 and 2008.[3] The total number of lung cancer cases evaluated in this study over the three year period equates to 96,735. In the RCLCF Smart Map, lung cancer specific data from the study is grouped to show the percentage of diagnoses made via 'managed', 'emergency presentation' and 'other' routes. The 'managed' route encompasses patients who presented through the two week wait, GP referral, plus other outpatient and inpatient elective routes.

Lung cancer is Britain's biggest cancer killer with approximately 41,500 new cases diagnosed each year.[4] Of these patients, about 30% will survive a year and only about 8% will survive five years.[5],[6] Lung cancer kills almost 4,000 more women every year than breast cancer and accounts for more male cancer deaths than prostate, pancreatic and stomach cancer combined.[7]

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our lung cancer section for the latest news on this subject.

[1] National Lung Cancer Audit Report 2012

[2] National Cancer Intelligence Network. Routes to Diagnosis – NCIN Data Briefing (Last accessed May 2013)

[3] National Cancer Intelligence Network. Routes to Diagnosis, 2006-2008 (Last accessed May 2013)

[4] Cancer Research UK. Lung Cancer Incidence Statistics(Last accessed May 2013)

[5] Office of National Statistics. Cancer Survival in England - Patients Diagnosed 2005-2009 and Followed up to 2010 (Last accessed May 2013)

[6] Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. Lung Cancer Facts and Figures (Last accessed May 2013)

[7] Cancer Research UK. Cancer mortality for common cancers (Last accessed May 2013)

Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. "Smart Map launch offers new approach in the battle against Britain's biggest cancer killer, UK." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 31 Jul. 2013. Web.
31 Jul. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Smart Map launch offers new approach in the battle against Britain's biggest cancer killer, UK'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

View the original article here