Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 120 posts

Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991

#11

Post by timerol »

nluken wrote: post #4
paulpauper wrote: post #3

The problem is this is mostly due to screening, not progress at treating advanced cancer, although that has improved too.

I get what you're saying: it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison since better screening means we're comparing cancers of different severities. I don't necessarily see that as a problem, though, since a lot of these earlier screened cancers would have become more advanced cancers down the line. If our testing were perfect such that we could detect all cancers early enough to stop, that would functionally be a c…

The "US Cancer Death Rate" talked about in the article is measured in deaths per 100,000 population, not deaths per detected cancer. So we are comparing apples to apples, but finding and treating cancers earlier could be helping to result in fewer deaths.

Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991

#12

Post by nluken »

pasquinelli wrote: post #9
nluken wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying: it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison since better screening means we're comparing cancers of different severities. I don't necessarily see that as a problem, though, since a lot of these earlier screened cancers would have become more advanced cancers down the line. If our testing were perfect such that we could detect all cancers early enough to stop, that would functionally be a c…

> If our testing were perfect such that we could detect all cancers early enough to stop, that would functionally be a cure, no? no. being able to detect cancer doesn't mean people are getting tested twice a year for their whole life. for example, you wouldn't have routine cancer screenings for children, but sometimes they get cancer, and on those occasions it'd be nice to have better treatment options.

> it'd be nice to have better treatment options.

No disagreement with you there. By "perfect screening" I assumed a "perfect" patient set where problems brought up at annual checkups lead directly to tests which lead to detection, but perhaps that's a naïve assumption to the point of uselessness.

Still, I think it's easy to write off screening advances as skewing the data set vs. actually saving lives, when they do in fact help people that otherwise could have been much sicker.

Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991

#13

Post by docdendrite »

myroon5 wrote: post #5

More vaccines seems like one of the most straightforward future mitigations since viruses like Hepatitis/HPV/mono/HIV/herpes/etc cause almost a fifth of cancer cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus

That is a dubious claim. While links between HPV and cervical cancer are quite strong and well-defined, the associations with the other viruses you cite are only correlative. Also, Hep C, HIV and herpes have no vaccine, so unclear what your statement is referring to anyway? What has contributed to a drop in cancer mortality would be advances in treatment (like targeted therapies and immunoncology), better image/blood/genetic screening practices, and certainly the decreased popularity of smoking.

Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991

#14

Post by tshaddox »

pasquinelli wrote: post #9
nluken wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying: it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison since better screening means we're comparing cancers of different severities. I don't necessarily see that as a problem, though, since a lot of these earlier screened cancers would have become more advanced cancers down the line. If our testing were perfect such that we could detect all cancers early enough to stop, that would functionally be a c…

> If our testing were perfect such that we could detect all cancers early enough to stop, that would functionally be a cure, no? no. being able to detect cancer doesn't mean people are getting tested twice a year for their whole life. for example, you wouldn't have routine cancer screenings for children, but sometimes they get cancer, and on those occasions it'd be nice to have better treatment options.

We wouldn’t normally even consider talking about these things as if they’re in any way mutually exclusive, would we? Like normally we would all understand that it’s good for cars to get safer and for trauma care to get better.

Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991

#15

Post by kragen »

pasquinelli wrote: post #9
nluken wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying: it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison since better screening means we're comparing cancers of different severities. I don't necessarily see that as a problem, though, since a lot of these earlier screened cancers would have become more advanced cancers down the line. If our testing were perfect such that we could detect all cancers early enough to stop, that would functionally be a c…

> If our testing were perfect such that we could detect all cancers early enough to stop, that would functionally be a cure, no? no. being able to detect cancer doesn't mean people are getting tested twice a year for their whole life. for example, you wouldn't have routine cancer screenings for children, but sometimes they get cancer, and on those occasions it'd be nice to have better treatment options.

if cancer screenings for children were painless, lower risk than the cancer, and cost five dollars, you would totally have routine cancer screenings for children

i mean maybe not in the usa but in sane places

Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991

#17

Post by JKCalhoun »

paulpauper wrote: post #3

The problem is this is mostly due to screening, not progress at treating advanced cancer, although that has improved too.

> The decline in smoking rates in the U.S., better early detection and innovative treatments including immunotherapy drugs have driven a drop in death rates since 1991, the report said, averting an estimated 3.8 million cancer deaths in that time.

Yes. I expected to find that the decline in smoking has also lead to the decline in fatal cancer — and there it is. Still a good thing.

Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991

#18

Post by melling »

paulpauper wrote: post #3

The problem is this is mostly due to screening, not progress at treating advanced cancer, although that has improved too.

That’s not a problem, it’s the key to curing cancers, according to Craig Venter

@15:40 early detection is the way to eliminate cancer: https://youtu.be/iUqgTYbkHP8 https://youtu.be/iUqgTYbkHP8?t=15m37s

The reason people die from pancreatic cancer when they get it is because we can’t detect it early.

Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991

#20

Post by cokeandpepsi »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #17
paulpauper wrote: post #3

The problem is this is mostly due to screening, not progress at treating advanced cancer, although that has improved too.

> The decline in smoking rates in the U.S., better early detection and innovative treatments including immunotherapy drugs have driven a drop in death rates since 1991, the report said, averting an estimated 3.8 million cancer deaths in that time. Yes. I expected to find that the decline in smoking has also lead to the decline in fatal cancer — and there it is. Still a good thing.

it's crazy how fast smoking died out in the US even 10 years ago it felt people were puffing away all over the place
Post reply on HN