A mother of three is taking legal action after she says she was kept on chemotherapy for more than six years longer than she needed, a case that has now placed renewed attention on how long cancer treatment should continue and how closely patients are told why.
Samantha Smith, 45, from Bromsgrove, was diagnosed with a brain tumor in May 2014, underwent surgery, and later received radiotherapy and monthly chemotherapy while under the care of University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust.
According to her legal team, Smith was later told by a new consultant that she should have received only six months of chemotherapy, not six and a half years. The human cost, she says, has been constant fatigue, dental problems, early menopause, memory issues, leg pain, and a lower quality of life, the kind of daily burden that can turn ordinary routines into hard work.
A treatment that went on for years
Smith was first diagnosed after doctors found a brain tumor in 2014. Part of the tumor could not be removed during surgery, so she was advised to begin intensive radiotherapy and monthly chemotherapy medication under consultant oncologist Professor Ian Brown.
Regular MRI scans followed, and in 2021 she was told her condition was stable and that she could stop taking the medication. Only after Professor Brown retired, her legal team says, was it discovered that the chemotherapy had continued far beyond what was needed.
“Part of my life has been stolen,” Smith said, describing years of trying to function while believing the treatment was necessary. What would most people do in that situation? For the most part, they would do exactly what she did and trust the specialist in front of them.
What the trust said
In correspondence described by Irwin Mitchell, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust said it was “very sorry for the excessive treatment” and for the impact on Smith’s health. The trust also stated that the extended chemotherapy was not in line with national guidance and was “not supported by scientific evidence.”
The trust said “actions have been implemented” to help prevent a repeat, including stopping the medication at six or 12 cycles and requiring input from a clinician, nurse, and pharmacist to document the diagnosis and treatment plan at the start. That may sound technical, but in practical terms it means more people should be checking the road map before treatment continues month after month.
Professor Brown has been referred to the General Medical Council, according to the same statement, after another patient was found to have undergone more than 14 years of chemotherapy overtreatment. The case is not being treated as a small paperwork mistake, but as part of a wider review of patient care.
Why chemotherapy timing matters
Temozolomide, often shortened to TMZ, is an oral chemotherapy drug used in some brain tumor treatment plans. NICE guidance for newly diagnosed grade 4 glioma includes radiotherapy with temozolomide followed by up to six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide for some patients, while certain older patients may be offered up to 12 cycles.
That is why the number of cycles matters so much. Treatment is not just a calendar entry at the hospital or another bottle of pills to collect, because every extra cycle can bring side effects, uncertainty, and stress for the person living through it.
Medical reviews have also warned that temozolomide is linked with higher risks of side effects such as blood-related toxicity, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and infections. MedlinePlus also lists possible effects including lack of energy, memory problems, mouth sores, dizziness, hair loss, and changes in vision.
A wider patient safety review
The issue appears to go beyond Smith’s case. Brabners, another law firm involved with affected patients, reported that UHCW commissioned the Royal College of Physicians to conduct an independent external review of patients identified as having received more than 12 cycles of adjuvant temozolomide between 2017 and 2023.
For patients and families, that kind of review can be both reassuring and unsettling. Reassuring, because someone is looking back at what happened. Unsettling, because it raises a painful question that can linger for years, which is whether treatment helped, harmed, or simply went on without enough evidence.
Leanne Atkinson, the medical negligence lawyer representing Smith, said her client had “every faith” in the advice she was given and has been left devastated by the discovery. Experts often warn that trust is essential in medicine, but trust also needs clear explanations, written plans, and moments where long-running treatment is properly challenged.
What patients can ask
This case does not mean patients should stop chemotherapy or distrust cancer specialists. Cancer treatment is complex, and decisions often depend on tumor type, age, scan results, performance status, and how the patient is tolerating treatment.
But it does underline a simple point. Patients can ask how many cycles are planned, what evidence supports that plan, what would trigger stopping, and whether a second opinion is appropriate when treatment continues longer than expected.
Those questions are not rude. They are part of safe care, especially when a treatment affects work, family life, fertility, memory, energy, and the small daily routines that make a person feel like themselves.
The press release was published on Irwin Mitchell.
