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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neuro-Oncology
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noag172.085
Primary Topic
Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Nicky Huskens, Camille Goetz, Eloise Lines, Andrew Wright et al.
Neuro-Oncology
Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
article

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

Nicky Huskens, Camille Goetz, Eloise Lines, Andrew Wright, Joanne Lewis
article en

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.

Neuro-OncologyVol. 28(Supplement_1)
London Cancer (GB), The Northern Ireland Cancer Centre (GB)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.