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

31–40 of 42 posts

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

#31

Post by DanBC »

sbjustin wrote: post #11

I suspect with no evidence to support that some of this may be related to people dying of other things instead on cancer such as heart disease, etc. Another interesting fact is if you look at US deaths, fewer die between the age of 60 and 80 than before and after. Seems like if you can make it to sixty you'll die of old age or some random cancer.

> Another interesting fact is if you look at US deaths, fewer die between the age of 60 and 80 than before and after. Seems like if you can make it to sixty you'll die of old age or some random cancer

Medicaid kicks in at age 65. I suspect that people over 65 get disproportionately more funding which is why the US does well with people over that age.

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

#32

Post by omonra »

danieltillett wrote: post #6
omonra wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that any cause of death had to go up? Overall US death rate went down from 8.5 to 8.0 between 1991 and 2011 (ie 6%). So every cause of death might have gone down (although I couldn't find the stats). http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005131.html

Not when Cancer is responsible for 1/3 of all deaths - the maths just don't work.

23% (576k out of total 2515).

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php#top_10_l...

The rate of 169 per 100k is confirmed in this story as well.

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

#33

Post by dghughes »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #30

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…

OK going to College brb

Then maybe you'll allow me to comment, sir!

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

#34

Post by wdewind »

tsotha wrote: post #23
Gatsky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ali…

> Like I said - four months. In the vast majority of cases we can keep you alive for a few months longer.

Can you cite this? I suspect it's an average, and thus not very useful. (Ie: some people are living a lot longer, enough to drive the overall average up 4 months, not most people are living 4 months longer).

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

#35

Post by thundara »

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.…

What you see as a disparity, researchers and pharmaceuticals see as a honeypot. A cure for any form is a win for someone, but make no mistake that solid tumors are on a few institutions' big targets.

There's a few different approaches going on right now including (1) studying mechanisms of how tumors become drug resistant, (2) stimulating the immune system to better target the tumors, and (3) figuring out how to make those solid tumors spongy again.

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

#36

Post by serf »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #30

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…

>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.

What a truly strange thing to say.

"I elect myself thread moderator!"

Let's not act like needless comments and speculation don't have the potential to add to a topic of discussion, they do.

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

#37

Post by ejstronge »

danieltillett wrote: post #21
e2e8 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you and the news article are thinking of different statistics.

The metric described in the news article is deaths by cancer per 100,000 individuals.

What you calculated is the percentage of deaths due to cancer.

I don't have access to the scientific article that was the foundation of this news piece but it looks like the reduction in death rate was not the authors' main point [1].

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24890451

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

#38

Post by Lost_BiomedE »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #27
Lost_BiomedE wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I did by buying EXAS when the new CEO came in at about $2. The previous management didn't have what it took to get it off the ground. The availability to buy the test came out this quarter so sales numbers are not in yet (but it is fully reimbursed at ~$500, where management said they would make a killing at $300). So after doing your due diligence, it may be worth waiting for the sales numbers to come out and buy on any weakness.

The other way to take advantage is to get yourself screened :)

Disclosure: I own shares

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

#39

Post by danieltillett »

ejstronge wrote: post #37
danieltillett wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you and the news article are thinking of different statistics. The metric described in the news article is deaths by cancer per 100,000 individuals. What you calculated is the percentage of deaths due to cancer. I don't have access to the scientific article that was the foundation of this news piece but it looks like the reduction in death rate was not the authors' main point [1]. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.…

Yes it looks like they are using the age adjusted rate. The problem is it looks like almost most causes of death have fallen in an age adjusted rate by about 20% also. This is great news, but I am not sure why cancer was singled out.

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

#40

Post by danieltillett »

omonra wrote: post #32
danieltillett wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not when Cancer is responsible for 1/3 of all deaths - the maths just don't work.

23% (576k out of total 2515). http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php#top_10_l... The rate of 169 per 100k is confirmed in this story as well.

The real answer is they are comparing age adjusted death rates per 100,000. This has fallen across the range of all causes of death by around 20%.
Post reply on HN