Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#41

Post by angrais » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #29

gambiting wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me????? My dad was diagnosed with a very rare type of stomach cancer called GIST at 42. The average survivability at that stage for GIST at that time was 6-12 months. Zero patients lived more than 5 years. He was given experimental(at the time) drug called Glivec as it was being tested specifically against GIST and it was literally one of these "there's nothing else, so might as well". He lived anothe…

Consider that a 40 year old today can live 40+ more years. so even 4 extra years with experimental treatments is small relative to potential life expectancy without cancer. 4 years is still optimistic given that stage 4 survival for major cancers instill in the 3-20% range depending on the cancer. Speaking of the number 4, awesome my comment already at -4, which is the cap.

Yes, but cancer is not a solved problem, and so people will get it and eventually die. Also, who cares if people live 40+ years? Those with cancer statistically don't, yet drugs can increase life expectancy. That's the point.

An extra day with your loved ones is paradise. Taking a drug and potentially gaining years?

Come on mate, it's not a surprise you're being downvoted as your attitude is a disgrace.

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#42

Post by pcorsaro » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #21

sharadov wrote: post #12

I agree, my dad was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer in 2020. One of the drugs that he was given as part of the anti-cancer regimen "Avastin" - starves the tumor of blood supply, effectively limiting growth, this differs from conventional chemo which attacks both healthy and cancer cells. After 22 cycles, he went into remission earlier this year.

Are there no downsides to Avastin? How long is a cycle?

Your wounds won’t heal. It also costs a fortune. I don’t think it clinically makes a difference in survival rates either. My wife had stage 4 colon cancer and they used it in conjunction with her standard chemo treatments for a couple of sessions. The incision where her port was installed never fully healed so they took her off of it.

Edit: when they took her off the avastin, her oncologist just said it was no big deal. They use it because it doesn’t hurt anything.

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#43

Post by adventured » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #23

paulpauper wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for a 40 year old diagnosed with stage 4 cancer ,a few extra years ain't much

Are you kidding me????? My dad was diagnosed with a very rare type of stomach cancer called GIST at 42. The average survivability at that stage for GIST at that time was 6-12 months. Zero patients lived more than 5 years. He was given experimental(at the time) drug called Glivec as it was being tested specifically against GIST and it was literally one of these "there's nothing else, so might as well". He lived anothe…

> How is that "ain't much"?

Whether four or eight years, either is an enormous gift when facing a terminal illness. There is no question about it. It's even more so the case if a person is 40 years old than if they're 80. The 80 year old has already lived a full life, death is far more acceptable, tolerable, at that age for most people.

I suspect a person would have had to have never seen a loved one confront a terminal illness, to believe a year of additional time isn't a lot given the context.

My mother died relatively young from small cell lung cancer. At the time there were no specific therapies for it, it was often caught late, and typically a person would die within 6-12 months. Almost nobody would make it more than three years. She lived for around 20 months post diagnosis, and that was a lot of very valuable time, even if it wasn't enough time.

I've observed across my lifetime that some people live more in a year than other people manage to in a decade.

How quickly time passes objectively and how we experience time are obviously two different things. Perhaps the skeptical parent was failing to grasp the significance of the difference. When facing a terminal illness, how you experience time is drastically altered, even if the seconds tick by as they did before.

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#44

Post by chiefofstuffs » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #5

A close family member has stage 4 cancer. Even if the absolute death rates for some cancers are relatively unchanged, one of the amazing things I’ve observed is that medical advances have increased the long term survival rates of terminal/metastaticized cancers. It’s partially due to the development of various drugs that have been identified as effective against various specific mutations. Even if the cancer is incur…

I'm in a similar situation. Partially have self-serving hope, but agreed that the game is starting to shift. The goal is now to buy enough time with the current drug you can move to the next version. So if you get 3 years from the drug and new ones come out every 2, you might get to die of something else.

Also aggregated death rates will always lag if treatments are improving.

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#45

Post by ncallaway » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #29

gambiting wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me????? My dad was diagnosed with a very rare type of stomach cancer called GIST at 42. The average survivability at that stage for GIST at that time was 6-12 months. Zero patients lived more than 5 years. He was given experimental(at the time) drug called Glivec as it was being tested specifically against GIST and it was literally one of these "there's nothing else, so might as well". He lived anothe…

Consider that a 40 year old today can live 40+ more years. so even 4 extra years with experimental treatments is small relative to potential life expectancy without cancer. 4 years is still optimistic given that stage 4 survival for major cancers instill in the 3-20% range depending on the cancer. Speaking of the number 4, awesome my comment already at -4, which is the cap.

> Speaking of the number 4, awesome my comment already at -4, which is the cap.

I cannot believe how flippantly you're responding to someone who told the story of their dad passing away due to cancer, and yet you have the gall to also whine about downvotes.

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#46

Post by riboflavin123 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #37

hanniabu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like something insurance will either refuse to cover for being expensive or make you try 5 other approaches first before agreeing to cover it, at which point it'll probably be too late.

Unlikely. It will rule out treatments that are unlikely to work, saving money. What we are seeing is Simpson’s paradox. Genomics and precision medicine allow you to segment populations at a higher resolution then before.

It may rule them out. But many standard-of-care chemo drugs are quite cheap.

When I had leukemia, my first rounds of chemo used cheap drugs. (The drugs were far cheaper than the daily hospitalization costs, which was required due to drugs obliterating the immune system.) The insurance company didn't require any oversight into the process.

But once the chemo stopped working and a much more expensive treatment was needed, the insurance company became quite a pest. I'm fortunate have saved a lot of money, so I didn't delay treatment until insurance approved it. (The 2-3 weeks between treatment starting and the final approval from insurance may have actually made a difference between life-and-death when dealing with aggressive leukemia.)

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#47

Post by nemo44x » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:39 PM UTC

sunshineforever wrote: post #14

In addition to medical developments, I think that clean living has become more popular than ever. In 2021, you see people who would never have been interested in a healthy diet eating properly. And obesity is an significant risk factor for cancer.

Depends where you live - you may have selection bias. When I go back home away from the wealthy bubble I see a whole lot of “dirty” living around and not a whole lot of wanting to change.

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#48

Post by sjg007 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

riboflavin123 wrote: post #46

sjg007 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely. It will rule out treatments that are unlikely to work, saving money. What we are seeing is Simpson’s paradox. Genomics and precision medicine allow you to segment populations at a higher resolution then before.

It may rule them out. But many standard-of-care chemo drugs are quite cheap. When I had leukemia, my first rounds of chemo used cheap drugs. (The drugs were far cheaper than the daily hospitalization costs, which was required due to drugs obliterating the immune system.) The insurance company didn't require any oversight into the process. But once the chemo stopped working and a much more expensive treatment was need…

I’m glad you’re here and a survivor of that hell. Yes, what you are describing is a very real problem. It’s something we need congressional action on. Call it a surprise medical bill but more rather a surprise insurance denial. I am no stranger to insurance battles…

I actually should have put it differently. Precision medicine will bring new treatments to the standard of care because we will be able to find the correct drug for you or me.

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#49

Post by riboflavin123 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #29

gambiting wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me????? My dad was diagnosed with a very rare type of stomach cancer called GIST at 42. The average survivability at that stage for GIST at that time was 6-12 months. Zero patients lived more than 5 years. He was given experimental(at the time) drug called Glivec as it was being tested specifically against GIST and it was literally one of these "there's nothing else, so might as well". He lived anothe…

Consider that a 40 year old today can live 40+ more years. so even 4 extra years with experimental treatments is small relative to potential life expectancy without cancer. 4 years is still optimistic given that stage 4 survival for major cancers instill in the 3-20% range depending on the cancer. Speaking of the number 4, awesome my comment already at -4, which is the cap.

You can't fold every individual into some sort of "average" case when the individualism isn't favorable. The universe doesn't work that way.

Re: Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds

#50

Post by t3po7re5 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

chiefofstuffs wrote: post #44

opportune wrote: post #5

A close family member has stage 4 cancer. Even if the absolute death rates for some cancers are relatively unchanged, one of the amazing things I’ve observed is that medical advances have increased the long term survival rates of terminal/metastaticized cancers. It’s partially due to the development of various drugs that have been identified as effective against various specific mutations. Even if the cancer is incur…

I'm in a similar situation. Partially have self-serving hope, but agreed that the game is starting to shift. The goal is now to buy enough time with the current drug you can move to the next version. So if you get 3 years from the drug and new ones come out every 2, you might get to die of something else. Also aggregated death rates will always lag if treatments are improving.

Yep, its all about staying ahead of the curve