WRITTEN QUESTION E-0037/03 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Efficacy of somatostatin in fighting cancer.
Date: 2003-01-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, cancer, hormone, medical research, research results, therapeutics

C 33 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Especially in the UK, the higher education sector already comprises a mixture of public and private
institutions with increasing amounts of funding coming from fees and other private sources.

In light of this, does the EC plan to agree to any requests from third countries which entail the removal of
any limitation which would ensure that commitments apply only to privately-funded education?

Can the EC also clarify the term ‘privately-funded education’, in view of the fact that increasing amounts of
funding are coming from fees and other sources to all educational institutions?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Community has no intention to modify the existing commitment on higher education services which
is limited to privately funded services.

The term ‘privately-funded education’ limits the Community commitment only to those institutions whose
operation is based on private resources. The fact that some educational institutions receive supplementary
support from fees or other private funding does not automatically make them ‘privately-funded’.

(2004/C 33 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0037/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Efficacy of somatostatin in fighting cancer

The International Congress of Oncology in Orlando (USA) and conferences in Naples and Como in Italy
have identified vitamin A, retinoids and somatostatin as effective anti-tumour agents. This was in line with
the claims made by Prof. Luigi di Bella, whose methods the Italian Ministry of Health deemed to have no
scientific basis in 1997.

1.

Is the Commission acquainted with the research findings made public at the recent congresses?

Does it knows whether the therapy named after Prof. Di Bella has any connection with the latest

2.
results emerging from the above-mentioned international congresses on oncology?

Does it considers it appropriate to set up a committee to establish the validity of the Di Bella therapy

3.
in treating tumours?

4.
In view of the scientific basis now recognised for the use of somatostatin in treating certain kinds of
tumour, it does not consider it should fund research to ensure that this method is used increasingly in
Europe?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of state-of-the-art research undertaken regarding the use of somatostatin,
retinoids and vitamin A in the treatment of cancer.

Somatostatin analogues have proved to be useful both in experimental tumour models in vitro and in
animal models. In human subjects, clinical efficacy in the treatment of acromegaly and, to a lesser extent,
in neuroendocrine tumours has also been established.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/31

Derivatives of vitamin A, the retinoids, are being evaluated at present as potential cancer preventing
agents. Recent results demonstrate their contribution in treating specific pre-malignant
lesions and
reducing the incidence of second primary tumours on patients with prior primary head and neck, cancers.
It is not yet known, however, whether retinoids will prevent primary tumours at these sites.

The Commission considers the above results on somatostatin and retinoids not adding any relevant
information which could help to give further light on the efficacy of Di Bella multitherapy regime or will
justify its re-assessment. This method, based on a multidrug regime,
included a variety of other
components in addition to these two such as melatonin, bromocriptine, adrenocorticotropic hormone
(ACTH), cyclophosphamide and hydroxyurea and was administered to cancer specific sites different than
those reported above. Extrapolations on the potential efficacy of Di Bella multitherapy based on the above
findings are therefore not possible.

The clinical efficacy and antitumour activity of the Di Bella multitherapy was already evaluated, at the
request of the Italian Ministry of Health, through a multi-center phase II clinical trial study performed in
26 hospital cancer divisions and enrolling 386 patients with advanced cancer. The conclusion of this trial
was that Di Bella multitherapy did not show sufficient efficacy on patients with advanced cancer to
warrant further clinical testing. The full report on this trial was published in the international peer review
journal British Medical Journal (1).

Cancer research in the 6th Framework Programme is supported within the Thematic Priority ‘Life Sciences,
genomics and biotechnology for health’. Amongst other issues, cancer research will concentrate in
supporting clinical research, particularly clinical trials, aimed at validating new and improved interventions
as well as supporting translational research aimed at bringing basic knowledge through to applications in
clinical practice and public health.

In this context,
applications regarding somatostatin, vitamin A and retinoids in the treatment of cancer.

the programme offers opportunities, amongst other subjects,

for relevant research

(1) No 318, pp. 224-228, 1999.

(2004/C 33 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0044/03

by Christa Randzio-Plath (PSE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Application of competition law to rating agencies and auditors

The accountancy and financial market scandals of recent years have done severe damage to investor
confidence. The authorities in the USA and the EU are concentrating on regulatory and supervisory
measures. Is it not a failure of the system of monitoring fair competition that external ratings are decided
upon by five agencies, and the auditing of over 80 % of the 100 largest businesses in Belgium, France,
Italy, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and well over 50 % of those in other EU countries is carried
out by four accountancy firms?

1. What is the Commission’s assessment of rating agencies’ dominant market position and the lack of
competitive mechanisms between them? What further distortions of competition are associated with initial
contracts in the relatively new European rating market?

How does the Commission ensure that rating agencies do not gain a more dominant market position

2.
by offering additional services?

3. What forms of cooperation exist to meet the challenges posed by world market dominance?