Experts tasked with reviewing access to new medicines have rejected calls for a cancer drugs fund.

Professor Philip Routledge and Professor Charles Swainson both warned against singling out cancer from other diseases and conditions, after being asked about concerns over access to drugs to treat the disease.

During an evidence session at Holyrood's Health Committee in which the professors answered questions about their review, Conservative MSP Nanette Milne asked about the prospect of a cancer drugs fund.

Prof Routledge, of Cardiff University, told her: "I would be loathe to single cancer out from other conditions which shorten life or reduce the quality of life significantly."

Former NHS Lothian medical director Prof Swainson agreed, saying: "There was no evidence presented to me that demonstrated that drugs for cancer are treated any differently from other drugs in the decision making by Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) or indeed in the decision making by Individual Patient Treatment Requests (IPTRs)."

Around two-thirds of all IPTRs are successful, the same proportion accepted for patients with cancer, Prof Swainson said.

Health Secretary Alex Neil asked the professors to review access to new medicines last November after concerns were raised by some doctors, charities and patients.

The academics looked at both the SMC, which appraises and recommends new medicines, and the IPTR system which patients can use to try to get drugs not approved by the SMC.

The professors made a number of recommendations including more public involvement and transparency in the process.

Prof Routledge said: "My conclusion is that the process which Scotland uses to appraise new drugs is a very good one, and one which Scotland should be proud of. My recommendations relate largely to trying to increase the transparency of the process so that all those involved in the process ... are able to see the qualities of the process that Scotland uses."

Prof Swainson said: "Many of my recommendations are about tightening up and improving on what is there already, and essentially asking for more transparency and public reporting in these important systems."

Labour MSP Dr Richard Simpson said he is disappointed that the review recommendations were not more radical in terms of improving the structures of the system.

Only 74% of drugs approved by the SMC are then agreed for inclusion by the area drug and therapeutic committees (ADTCs), meaning availability can vary across the country from one health board to another, he said.

"I think the public cannot understand that when the SMC recommends a drug for general use or for restricted use, it is not then implemented across the whole of Scotland," Dr Simpson said.

The committees appear to be "second-guessing" the SMC with different restrictions, Dr Simpson said.

Prof Swainson said: "I have a great deal of sympathy with your view. We could certainly have a more robust way of dealing those in a more uniform fashion.

"I didn't recommend that we should only have one ADTC but I think for the introduction of specialist medicines that it would be a very good idea. The gain would be that everyone understood how the drug was to be introduced and patients in Scotland would benefit in a more uniform format."