AT least 70 lung cancer patients in Worcestershire could have a better quality of life if state-of-the-art scanners were installed in the county's hospitals, experts have claimed.

Leading lung cancer experts, charities and patients have called upon the Government to announce a national framework for the provision of PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scanners at hospitals across the UK.

They say they can make a real difference in at least a quarter of all lung cancer cases.

There are just five at present in the NHS, which means up to 70 Worcestershire lung cancer patients may have to travel either to London, Middlesex, Mount Vernon or Hammersmith each year to have a PET scan, according to Macmillan Cancer Relief.

PET scanners are considered to be the best way of diagnosing disease and evaluating the success of treatment, picking up disease earlier than a CT or MR scan, and allowing doctors to target treatments better.

A regional spokesman for Macmillan Cancer Relief, one of the charities calling for the extra scanners, said: "We need more PET scanners - at least 15 within the next five years to deal with the 38,000 lung cancer patients diagnosed each year.

"Lung cancer patients deserve to have equal access to the best treatment and care to improve their quality of life wherever they live."

But Richard Haynes, spokesman for Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, said there is not necessarily any need for a PET scanner in the county.

He said Worcestershire Royal Hospital had a MR scanner, as would the new treatment centre at Kidderminster and there were talks for one at the Alexandra, in Redditch.

"MR scanners have other uses that a PET scanner does not and do perform some of the same functions as a PET scanner," he said. "It can not only look at the lungs, but joints and other tissue.

"PET scanners are very good but extremely expensive and when it comes to the allocation of the trust's scarce resources MR scanners will get more return and value.

"The question would be whether a PET scanner in Worcestershire would serve a big enough population to make it a worthwhile investment, or would it spend the majority of its time under a dustsheet not being used?

"If we were to be offered funding it would need to be a very significant amount as we would not only have to purchase the new equipment, but build somewhere to house it and finance extra staff to run it."