Andy Burnham to meet swimmer Archie Goodburn after emotional plea on BBC Breakfast
Scottish swimmer Archie Goodburn is due to meet Andy Burnham after urging the prime minister to take stronger action on brain tumours. Goodburn wants a national brain cancer lead appointed, saying the meeting could create an opportunity to address what he calls injustices facing patients.
Diagnosed at 22 with a grade 2 oligodendroglioma, Goodburn was initially placed on a “watch and wait” pathway because standard treatments could cause severe side-effects. He began taking vorasidenib in summer 2025 through a managed access programme and says it has been transformational, but warns there is no next-line treatment available in the UK if it stops working. He says patients in the US can access other drugs, including safusidenib and ivosidenib.
- Archie Goodburn will meet Andy Burnham to discuss brain tumour care.
- He is calling for a national brain cancer lead.
- He says UK patients lack a next treatment option if vorasidenib fails.
New here? Start with this
Brain tumours are growths in the brain, and their effects and treatment vary by type and grade. An oligodendroglioma is a type of brain tumour that can grow slowly; doctors may monitor some tumours before starting treatment if available treatments risk serious side-effects.
Vorasidenib is a medicine used for some people with this tumour type. Managed access programmes can allow patients to receive a medicine while its availability is assessed, but treatment options can differ between countries. A national brain cancer lead would be a government-appointed figure responsible for coordinating work on brain cancer, an area that includes research, care and access to treatments.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A national brain cancer lead could give patients a clear advocate in government, coordinate research and care, and press for more treatment options. Goodburn’s experience suggests that access to a drug can be life-changing while still leaving patients with few choices if it stops working, so supporters may see action on next-line treatments as urgent and fair.
The case against
Those urging caution may argue that creating a national post or widening access to drugs should depend on evidence of safety, effectiveness and value, especially where treatments are still being assessed. They may favour decisions led by clinical evidence and existing health bodies, alongside investment in research, rather than promising access before benefits and risks are clear.