HEALTH bosses performed yet another U-turn last night by agreeing to pay for a dying cancer patient to be treated with a new £20,000 wonder-drug that could prolong her life by three years.

This latest about-turn by primary care trust (PCT) officials in North Yorkshire could pave the way for patients throughout the country suffering from the rare blood cancer multiple myeloma to receive a potentially life-extending drug.

Since The Northern Echo launched its End NHS Injustice campaign last year, PCT officials in the region have been persuaded to change their minds over new drugs to treat kidney cancer, lung cancer and bowel cancer.

This latest change of heart increases pressure on the NHS to make more new cancer drugs available and to speed up their assessment by the drug watchdog Nice (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence).

Eric Low, chief executive of the cancer charity Myeloma UK, said: "This is great news. Let's hope that this means patients across the country can now get access to this drug."

The drug, Revlimid, is widely available in Europe and America, but because it is not due to be reviewed by Nice until next spring, only a few NHS patients have been able to get it.

Yesterday's decision by North Yorkshire and York PCT to pay for Anne MacFarlane to receive a course of Revlimid (also known as Lenalidomide) followed a fivemonth fight for funding.

The 65-year-old former publican, who lives in Bedale, North Yorkshire, began legal action against her PCT after it refused to pay for the drug, which has extended the lives of cancer patients around the world since it was launched two years ago.

The breakthrough followed the intervention of world-famous cancer specialist Professor Karol Sikora, who wrote to the PCT giving his opinion that Mrs MacFarlane was likely to benefit from the drug.

Last night, Prof Sikora, who is medical director of the Cancer- Partners UK charity, told The Northern Echo: "The NHS has to get more efficient and Nice has got to look at new drugs faster.

"Europe has overtaken us in this area. France and Germany are spending the same amount as we are but their doctors are able to use all of these new drugs. It is a tragedy for patients."

Until yesterday, PCT bosses in North Yorkshire had argued that the drug was not cost-effective enough to be prescribed.

But after hearing new evidence prepared by solicitor Lisa Wild, of Newcastle law firm Irwin Mitchell - including data presented at the annual British Society for Haematology meeting in Glasgow two weeks ago, which showed that Revlimid could significantly extend life expectancy - PCT officials agreed to allow Mrs MacFarlane's consultant to prescribe Revlimid.

Mrs MacFarlane's husband, Andy, said: "We just want to thank The Northern Echo for highlighting our case."

Mr MacFarlane said the Government under-estimated the strength of popular feeling about making the latest cancer drugs available on the NHS.

He said: "If they are not prepared to fund these new drugs for cancer, then it is no longer true that the NHS is free at the point of use.

"These drugs are expensive - that's the way life is."

Mr MacFarlane, who used to run the King's Arms pub in Bishop Auckland, said cancer drugs were important because the disease touched one in three people.

Mr Low, whose charity has been pressing for the NHS to fund Revlimid, said the drug was the most significant development in the treatment of multiple myeloma for 15 years. He expressed frustration at how long it was taking the NHS to consider whether to pay for it.

He said: "If you look at the trial results, it is an open and shut case. They should just trust the doctors to prescribe these expensive drugs. They are not out to waste the NHS's money."

Multiple myeloma is a rare, dangerous form of blood cell cancer that is difficult to treat.

Myeloma UK estimates there are about 3,000 cases diagnosed in Britain a year - about ten a day.

North Yorkshire and York PCT's medical director, Dr David Geddes, said: "The PCT looked at this case again as further evidence regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the drug had been made available. Additionally, information was received as the panel considered the case.

"On the evidence, the panel considered the general position that the PCT would not routinely fund this drug to be correct. However, it considered the individual merits of this case and, in light of the most recent information received, agreed funding."