English: When it comes to cancer, we do know that one of the most important elements to improve the chances of survival is ensuring an early diagnosis. Sometimes it's easier said than done, but with prostate cancer specifically, there is a testing method that does simplify and therefore accelerates the process of providing a diagnosis, and that is the mpMRI scan. You can't have a diagnosis of prostate cancer through a non-invasive test. The PSA test is available, but that only recognises whether you need further tests. The further tests include biopsies and they include a surgical method, which is undesirable for patients and should be avoided if possible. Other tests are not entirely reliable either. They can miss cancers - give the impression that patients are clear. That, of course, can lead to a patient ignoring symptoms and being untreated as a result. They can also suggest that the cancer is in the body when there is no cancer there, leading to treatment that can lead to lifelong complications. The mpMRI scan does offer a much more promising pathway for accurate diagnosis. Very simply, it gives a clearer picture of what's happening in the prostate. And the evidence that's emerging - and I thank Tenovus specifically for one brief that I have - shows that mpMRI scans can be much more sensitive than other biopsies in recognising significant clinical cancers. So, it is much less likely to produce negative, fake results. However, it doesn't remove the possibility of a false positive, so when the test does recognise the cancer, the patient does have to go through a biopsy. So, no, it's not perfect, but NICE has supported the use of mpMRI as a significant improvement on the old system and has published guidance to that end. The question, therefore, that we have before us is not about a petition calling for something where the evidence is not there yet to support it - we're asking: why is there not regular or consistent access to tests that have been proven to be valuable under the appropriate circumstances?
Welsh: Pan mae hi'n dod at ganser, rŷn ni'n gwybod mai un o'r agweddau pwysicaf er mwyn gwella'r siawns o oroesi ydy sicrhau diagnosis cyflym. Weithiau mae'n haws dweud na gwneud, ond efo canser y brostad yn benodol, mae yna ddull profi sydd wir yn symleiddio ac felly'n cyflymu'r broses o roi diagnosis, a'r prawf hwnnw ydy sgan mpMRI. Does yna ddim modd o gael diagnosis canser y brostad drwy brawf llawfeddygol non-invasive. Er bod prawf PSA ar gael, dim ond adnabod a oes angen profion pellach mae hwnnw. Mae'r profion pellach yn cynnws biopsies ac mae'r rheini'n cael eu gwneud drwy ddulliau llawfeddygol, sy'n brofiad annymunol i'r claf ac yn brofiad mae cleifion yn dymuno'i osgoi os ydy hynny yn bosib. Dydy profion eraill ddim yn gwbl ddibynadwy chwaith. Maen nhw'n gallu methu canser - rhoi'r argraff bod y claf yn glir. Mi allai hynny arwain, wrth gwrs, at y claf yn anwybyddu symptomau a mynd heb eu trin o ganlyniad. Maen nhw hefyd yn gallu awgrymu bod canser yn y corff pan nad oes yna, gan arwain at driniaeth sy'n gallu arwain at sgileffeithiau gydol oes. Mae'r sgan mpMRI yn cynnig llwybr llawer mwy addawol ar gyfer diagnosis mwy cywir. Yn syml iawn, mae o'n rhoi darlun cliriach o'r hyn sy'n digwydd yn y brostad. Ac mae'r dystiolaeth sydd yn dod i'r amlwg - a dwi'n diolch i Tenovus yn benodol am un briff sydd gen i - yn dangos bod gan sgan mpMRI y gallu i fod llawer mwy sensitif na biopsies eraill wrth adnabod canser clinigol arwyddocaol. Felly, mae o yn llawer llai tebygol o gynhyrchu canlyniadau negyddol ffug. Er hynny, dydy o ddim yn dileu'r posibilrwydd o ganlyniad positif ffug, felly pan fo'r prawf yn adnabod canser posib, mae'n rhaid i'r claf fynd drwy brawf pellach, sef biopsi. Felly, nac ydy, dydy o ddim yn berffaith, ond mae NICE wedi cefnogi'r defnydd o mpMRI fel gwelliant sylweddol ar yr hen system ac wedi cyhoeddi'r canllawiau i'r perwyl hwnnw. Y cwestiwn, felly, sydd gennym ni o'n blaenau ydy nid o ddeiseb yn galw am rywbeth lle nad ydy'r dystiolaeth ddim yno eto i'w gefnogi fo - rŷn ni'n gofyn: pam fod yna ddim eto fynediad cyson i brofion sydd wedi cael eu profi i fod yn werthfawr yn yr amgylchiadau priodol?