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

U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#21

Post by danieltillett »

e2e8 wrote: post #7
danieltillett wrote: post #3

So what cause of death went up? Edit. To answer my own question it seems to be the very vague "All other causes" [1]. 1. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db88.htm

I think this is the relevant data: 1991: page 9 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf 2011: page 4 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Wow this data is not easy to compare. In 1991 the death rate from Cancer was 514,657 out of 2,169,518 deaths (23.7%). In 2011 it was 575,313 out of 2,512,873 deaths (22.9%). This does not look like a 22% drop to me any way you dice the numbers.

Over the same time heart disease dropped from 720,862 in 1991 to 596,339 in 2011. This is much more impressive.

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#22

Post by danieltillett »

m_mueller wrote: post #16
danieltillett wrote: post #3

So what cause of death went up? Edit. To answer my own question it seems to be the very vague "All other causes" [1]. 1. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db88.htm

Re your edit: I'd not have guessed that this undefined category would be so large, it would be very interesting to see a breakdown of this category on a timeline. My guess is that some of the bigger ones in there could be far easier to solve than cancer.

My feeling the "All the causes" are a mix of deaths where there were multiple causes or the data was not recorded correctly.

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#23

Post by tsotha »

Gatsky wrote: post #19
tsotha wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it has anything to do with treatment. On average we've been able to add a whopping four months to longevity since the '70s, and even that's questionable since we have better diagnostic equipment. You were really, really lucky. A drop in cancer deaths is probably related to two things: a drop in smoking, and an increase in obesity that's killing people before they can get cancer.

Sorry but how can you doubt anything when you have no idea of the details of this person's disease? I think it is a bit off colour for you to impose your ideas on their actual experience. There are definitely cancer types which used to be fatal but can now be cured with therapy in the majority of patients, such as advanced germ cell tumours. Google it.

I didn't mean his disease. I meant cancer treatment in general. When I said he was lucky I meant he was lucky given his diagnosis.

And yes, I'm aware there are curable cancers. Hell, there are skin cancers that have never been particularly dangerous. But the number of types that used to be deadly that we can now cure is a drop in the bucket. Like I said - four months. In the vast majority of cases we can keep you alive for a few months longer. Otherwise it may as well be 1970.

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#24

Post by tsotha »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #18
ladzoppelin wrote: post #15

So are people getting cancer more or less that they were in 1991?

"For those years, deaths from cancer also decreased by 1.8 percent among men and fell by 1.4 percent among women." I hate to be this way, but as horrible as cancer is, the modes of death behind it are not to be ... advertised. My mother in law went to Alzheimers. Wouldn't wish that on anyone. As Hank Williams said, "I'll never get out of this world alive".

There's really no good way to die. About the best you can do is a massive coronary in your sleep.

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#25

Post by Lost_BiomedE »

Gatsky wrote: post #14

This is good news. Unless of course you are currently dying of cancer. Treatment for the most common solid tumours remains woefully inadequate, unless you compare it to even more woeful older therapies. Lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, these all remain horrible diseases, that result in an untimely and unpleasant death. We are replacing mortality with expensive morbidity that approaches death asymptotically.…

Good news on the colon cancer, though. Exact Sciences released an effective screen for it recently, catching pre-cancer as well. It is a slow growth cancer that can be treated very well at early stages. My guess is that they will drop colon cancer way down the cancer mortality list.

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#26

Post by iscrewyou »

tokenadult wrote: post #10
danieltillett wrote: post #3

So what cause of death went up? Edit. To answer my own question it seems to be the very vague "All other causes" [1]. 1. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db88.htm

No other cause went up to a meaningful degree in terms of death rates , which is what the submitted article mostly focused on. "The overall rate of deaths from cancer decreased from about 215 per 100,000 people in 1991 to about 169 per 100,000 people in 2011, researchers found." An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why"[1] Provides some of the b…

169 out of 10,000. For some reason, this number sounds more scary than the percentage.

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#27

Post by wahnfrieden »

Lost_BiomedE wrote: post #25
Gatsky wrote: post #14

This is good news. Unless of course you are currently dying of cancer. Treatment for the most common solid tumours remains woefully inadequate, unless you compare it to even more woeful older therapies. Lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, these all remain horrible diseases, that result in an untimely and unpleasant death. We are replacing mortality with expensive morbidity that approaches death asymptotically.…

Good news on the colon cancer, though. Exact Sciences released an effective screen for it recently, catching pre-cancer as well. It is a slow growth cancer that can be treated very well at early stages. My guess is that they will drop colon cancer way down the cancer mortality list.

Any info on how to take advantage of this development?

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#28

Post by danohuiginn »

iscrewyou wrote: post #26
tokenadult wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No other cause went up to a meaningful degree in terms of death rates , which is what the submitted article mostly focused on. "The overall rate of deaths from cancer decreased from about 215 per 100,000 people in 1991 to about 169 per 100,000 people in 2011, researchers found." An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why"[1] Provides some of the b…

169 out of 10,000. For some reason, this number sounds more scary than the percentage.

probably because you missed a zero. 169 out of 100,000

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#29

Post by refurb »

tsotha wrote: post #9
aosmith wrote: post #8

This is because of effective treatment. I was dx'ed with "fatal" cancer just over 10 years ago... Modern medicine FTW.

I doubt it has anything to do with treatment. On average we've been able to add a whopping four months to longevity since the '70s, and even that's questionable since we have better diagnostic equipment. You were really, really lucky. A drop in cancer deaths is probably related to two things: a drop in smoking, and an increase in obesity that's killing people before they can get cancer.

I doubt it has anything to do with treatment.

Hold on there. There have been several major advances in the treatment of cancer. Take a look at the leukemias. CML used to be a death sentence. Now, you can take Gleevec and you'll eventually die, but it won't be because of the cancer anymore. That drug turned a rapidly fatal cancer into a chronic, treatable condition.

Re: U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991

#30

Post by InclinedPlane »

A note to everyone wishing to comment on this:

1. Read the article, or at least skim it before commenting. The rates listed are population normalized, it would be a very bizarre thing indeed if some other cause of death was preferentially killing people before they got old enough to die of cancer yet somehow still caused overall life expectancy to increase.

2. Acquaint yourself with some basic statistics on causes of death in recent times, such as this easy to read infographic from a few months ago: http://www.bloomberg.com/dataview/2014-04-17/how-americans-d...

As you'll see, death rates for all age groups have been in decline across the board since 1991. People aren't dying due to obesity or diabetes instead of cancer, they're just dying less, mostly regardless of cause.

So please stop needlessly injecting your speculation and biases into the comments here, please only put forward arguments which are consistent with the well-established facts as we know them. Thanks.

Post reply on HN