52 Access to non-standard treatments: Insights from a UK-wide review of adult brain tumour services (2024-2026)

Clicks: 16
ID: 326733
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #205 of 286 articles by views in journal of neuro-oncology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 286 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Patients with high grade primary brain tumours often face poor outcomes and limited treatment options. Access to non-standard treatments - interventions not routinely available or funded for this patient group - may offer opportunities to improve survival and quality of life. Access routes include individual funding requests (IFRs), clinical trials, and early/managed access programmes. We aimed to examine variation in access to non-standard treatments across UK adult brain tumour services. Method Data were collected from 24 NHS neuro-oncology centres (covering >90% of the UK population) through the Tessa Jowell Centre of Excellence programme (2024–2026). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative findings were analysed thematically. Results Only 45% centres (11/24) reported a successful IFR (or equivalent) in the past year. Reported barriers included low success rates (12/24, 50%), time burden (8/24, 33%), and treatment delays (4/24, 17%). Many centres reported using alternative routes: early access schemes (9/24), clinical trials (6/24), managed access programmes (4/24), and hospital funding (3/24). Centres in the devolved nations reported fewer barriers overall and submitted significantly more successful requests than English centres. Centres reported offering 21 non-standard treatments, most commonly ONC201 (8/24), dabrafenib/trametinib (7/24), bevacizumab (6/24), and vorasidenib (5/24). Treatments centres wanted to, but were not able to, provide included bevacizumab (11/24), dabrafenib/trametinib (9/24), vorasidenib (7/24), and Tumour Treating Fields (6/24). Conclusions Centres reported substantial variation in the routes used to access non-standard treatments. Varying IFR success rates and reliance on alternative local schemes may contribute to inequitable access. Further work by the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission and its partners, such as an upcoming position statement on access to bevacizumab to treat radionecrosis, will focus on reducing this variation and standardising access.
Reference Key
openalex_W7204458249 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Joanne Lewis, Andrew Wright, Eloise Lines, Camille Goetz, Nicky Huskens
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal journal of neuro-oncology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/neuonc/noag172.085
URL
https://academic.oup.com/neuro-oncology/article-pdf/28/Supplement_1/noag172.085/70805929/noag172.085.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.